The difference between a Conservative and a liberal is

[Uncensored2008]

Exactly, that is the whole point of Capitalism, drive your competition out of business, take over their assets, and maximize profits.
Cutthroat Capitalism!

Comrade edtheliar, that is neither the purpose nor effect of Capitalism, not even your mentor, Comrade Marx, made such an absurd claim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sometimes I wonder if some of you cons have even met liberals in real life. It seems like Fox News douches like Sean Hannity tell you what you want to hear about them and the cycle of ignorance just continues.

I am a liberal.

And sadly, I've met plenty of you leftist motherfuckers. There is nothing even remotely 'liberal" about you. You are a leftist, a totalitarian seeking to enslave your fellow man and murder those who fail to yield to your filthy party.

In other words, a typical Khmer Rouge democrat.

 

[edthecynic]

Exactly, that is the whole point of Capitalism, drive your competition out of business, take over their assets, and maximize profits.
Cutthroat Capitalism!

Comrade edtheliar, that is neither the purpose nor effect of Capitalism, not even your mentor, Comrade Marx, made such an absurd claim.

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?" The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases. You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

 

[healthmyths]

Exactly, that is the whole point of Capitalism, drive your competition out of business, take over their assets, and maximize profits.
Cutthroat Capitalism!

Comrade edtheliar, that is neither the purpose nor effect of Capitalism, not even your mentor, Comrade Marx, made such an absurd claim.

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?" The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases. You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

That attitude was certainly prevalent in the early days of capitalism i.e. when the GDP in
GDP in 2005 dollars Population GDP per capita in 2005 dollars.
1800 $ 12,987 5,297,000 $ 1,396
1900 $ 422,843 76,094,000 $ 5,556
2009 12,987,400 307,483,000 $42,247
Measuring Worth - GDP result.

Funny how the pie gets bigger as capitalism gets more mature!
most capitalists find it is better to improve product/service and to find NEW products/services to offer as a way to increase profits.
For example who would EVER conceive even POOR Americans could have FREE cell phones? How does that happen if the dog eat dog world most liberals attribute to capitalists?

 

[Ame®icano]

Exactly, that is the whole point of Capitalism, drive your competition out of business, take over their assets, and maximize profits.
Cutthroat Capitalism!

Comrade edtheliar, that is neither the purpose nor effect of Capitalism, not even your mentor, Comrade Marx, made such an absurd claim.

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?" The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases. You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

And how market share increases? You don't go to other factories and level them with bulldozer, instead you make product better and cheaper then competition. Now, instead of bulldozer, our government use incentives and stimulus to run competition out of business and when they go abroad, crying how capitalism doesn't work.

 

[edthecynic]

Comrade edtheliar, that is neither the purpose nor effect of Capitalism, not even your mentor, Comrade Marx, made such an absurd claim.

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?" The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases. You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

And how market share increases? You don't go to other factories and level them with bulldozer, instead you make product better and cheaper then competition. Now, instead of bulldozer, our government use incentives and stimulus to run competition out of business and when they go abroad, crying how capitalism doesn't work.

The Right always tell you when they know they're wrong, they create a Straw Man. Where did I say anything about a bulldozer?

To see how Cutthroat Capitalism really works, I suggest you study how Rockefeller took over the oil industry.

A recent example of how Capitalists take over the assets of their competition is Comcast buying out Time Warner Cable. Capitalists abhor competition. Capitalists want to take over a market by any means possible.

"Competition is a sin"
John D Rockefeller

 

[Ame®icano]

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?" The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases. You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

And how market share increases? You don't go to other factories and level them with bulldozer, instead you make product better and cheaper then competition. Now, instead of bulldozer, our government use incentives and stimulus to run competition out of business and when they go abroad, crying how capitalism doesn't work.

The Right always tell you when they know they're wrong, they create a Straw Man. Where did I say anything about a bulldozer?

To see how Cutthroat Capitalism really works, I suggest you study how Rockefeller took over the oil industry.

A recent example of how Capitalists take over the assets of their competition is Comcast buying out Time Warner Cable. Capitalists abhor competition. Capitalists want to take over a market by any means possible.

"Competition is a sin"
John D Rockefeller

Bulldozers are figure of speech. Figure it out.

And Standard Oil was broken up into 30+ companies.

We have monopoly laws. Mergers are subject to approval by shareholders and government. For instance, under those laws, government rejected AT&T takeover of T-mobile.

 

[KNB]

One way that Capitalists "bulldoze" their competition is in their marijuana eradication efforts, literally and figuratively.

Industrial hemp can provide the majority of the world's needs without 1% corporate control. There are millions of marijuana plants growing in the US right now and Monsanto doesn't own a single seed. Cannabis doesn't use most of the same chemicals and pesticides used on other crops, so Dow Chemical and DuPont won't make as much money if Americans are free to grow hemp. And marijuana as a natural medicine cannot be controlled by Johnson & Johnson or Pfizer, so industrialists outlawed their natural competition and the US Federal government has been compliant for 75 years despite numerous government reports admitting that Cannabis prohibition is a costly failure. There was also the brief period from 1942 - 1945 when the American government legalized "Marihuana" and urged Americans as young as 16 to grow it to help keep our nation free.

Gasoline can be made from hemp seeds. Food can also be made from hemp seeds. Paper, plastic, building materials, etc. can be made from hemp stalks. The female Cannabis plant which produces THC can treat and possibly cure cancer. All without corporate control.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well what do you think Capitalists mean when say "increase market share?"

Your question belies the fact that you have no idea what capitalism is, and what makes one a capitalist.

A yard sale is the most perfect expression of capitalism. Goods are offered for sale. The buyer is free to buy or not buy at his pleasure. There is no government regulator to make the seller obtain a permit to ensure that well connected sellers who bribe the proper apparatchiks are protected from competition, no fee paid to those who produce nothing. No zoning restrictions to ensure that those who bribe government hacks have exclusive markets, none of the things you leftists promote.

Instead, there is only a buyer and a seller, trading value for value. If the buyer values the good for sale more than the cash in his hand, he buys it. If he does not, he negotiates a better price or walks away. No one is involved in the trade except the buyer and seller. No amount of bribes will alter the equation.

That is capitalism.

The more their market share increases the more their competition's share decreases.

Any seller of any good seeks to expand their market. It is a fool who claims that the desire to sell more goods is some sort of flaw or failing.

It is an equal fool who thinks that expansion of one is at the expense of another. Motorola invented the cell phone. Decades later, when Apple stole Microsoft's design for a smart phone, and the iPaq became the iPhone, the millions of iPhones sold meant that Motorola saw a decline in sales in the millions, right? I mean, in the communist view, each iPhone sold meant one less Motorola - it's what you said.

Of course that ISN'T at all what happened, Motorola sales went through the roof. Innovation expanded the market - more people bought cell phones. Thinking is something you Bolsheviks are not very good at, but expanding market share is as often due to expanding markets as is a result of taking an established customer base.

You are obviously not a Capitalist if you don't want to take as much of the market away from your competition as you can.

Again, you have no grasp at all of economics or business. I will offer a product at a price and quality point that attracts customers. I will offer value. Value will drive growth - it always does.

 

[Mojo2]

The liberal sees a hungry person and gives a fish thus feeding the hungry person for just one day.

The conservative teaches the hungry person how to fish thereby feeding the person for a life time.

I applaud the liberal for compassion to feed the hungry person.. but in doing so all the liberal has done is made the hungry person dependent on the liberal for more fish!

Where as the compassionate conservative wants the hungry person to be able to fish thereby feeding for a lifetime.

This is best illustrated by the "Three Bitter Years" Or "The Great Leap Forward".. in China.
Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng concluded there were 36 million deaths due to starvation, while another 40 million others failed to be born, so that "China's total population loss during the Great Famine then comes to 76 million."
The phrase "Three Bitter Years" is often used by Chinese peasants to describe this period.
The great Chinese famine was caused by social pressure, economic mismanagement, and radical changes in agriculture.
Mao Zedong, chairman of the Chinese communist party, introduced drastic changes in farming which prohibited farm ownership.

In a similar manner to the massive Soviet-created famine in Ukraine (the Holodomor), doctors were prohibited from listing "starvation" as a cause of death on death certificates. This kind of deception was far from uncommon; ....

Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conclusion is the "Great Leap Forward" official Chinese recognition of the importance of policy mistakes in causing the disaster,
claiming that the disaster was 30% due to natural causes and 70% by mismanagement.
"Central planning".. "Cubicle Command"...

And so because the liberal thinks the central planning is superior truly inhumane activities such as these are considered by liberals as necessary:

Dikötter claims that at least 2.5 million of the victims were beaten or tortured to death.
He provides a graphic example of what happened to a family after one member was caught stealing some food:
Liu Desheng, guilty of poaching a sweet potato, was covered in urine ... He, his wife, and his son were also forced into a heap of excrement.
Then tongs were used to pry his mouth open after he refused to swallow excrement. He died three weeks later..
Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course no liberal would have do that... only conservatives do water boarding!!!

Liberals are well intentioned but everything they do has unforeseen results and unintended consequences.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberals are well intentioned but everything they do has unforeseen results and unintended consequences.

Maybe.

But the leftists who comprise the democratic party and particularly the Obama administration are anything but "well intentioned."

The intentions of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are sinister.

 

[edthecynic]

And how market share increases? You don't go to other factories and level them with bulldozer, instead you make product better and cheaper then competition. Now, instead of bulldozer, our government use incentives and stimulus to run competition out of business and when they go abroad, crying how capitalism doesn't work.

The Right always tell you when they know they're wrong, they create a Straw Man. Where did I say anything about a bulldozer?

To see how Cutthroat Capitalism really works, I suggest you study how Rockefeller took over the oil industry.

A recent example of how Capitalists take over the assets of their competition is Comcast buying out Time Warner Cable. Capitalists abhor competition. Capitalists want to take over a market by any means possible.

"Competition is a sin"
John D Rockefeller

Bulldozers are figure of speech. Figure it out.

And Standard Oil was broken up into 30+ companies.

We have monopoly laws. Mergers are subject to approval by shareholders and government. For instance, under those laws, government rejected AT&T takeover of T-mobile.

All Rockefeller did was switch CONTROL of his oil monopoly to from the Standard Oil holding company to his charities and his banks. He STILL had complete CONTROL of his oil monopoly, he only passed OWNERSHIP to those entities he CONTROLLED.

For example, after Standard Oil was broken up into 33 separate companies Rockefeller OWNED only 25% on paper. So some stockholders tried to vote him off the board. Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies. Without OWNING 60% of the stock he voted 60% of the proxies and thus still CONTROLLED his oil monopoly just as he did before Standard Oil was "broken up!"

Banks are the loophole in the anti-trust laws. Banks, for example, may have pension funds from various sources deposited with them. The bank in turn buys stock IN THE NAME OF THE FUND. The fund OWNS the stock, but the bank CONTROLS the proxy vote of the stock!
That is how the real world works.
Get it?

"Own nothing. Control everything"
John D Rockefeller

 

[edthecynic]

Liberals are well intentioned but everything they do has unforeseen results and unintended consequences.

CON$ are NOT well intentioned and everything they do has unforeseen results and unintended consequences.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Right always tell you when they know they're wrong, they create a Straw Man. Where did I say anything about a bulldozer?

To see how Cutthroat Capitalism really works, I suggest you study how Rockefeller took over the oil industry.

A recent example of how Capitalists take over the assets of their competition is Comcast buying out Time Warner Cable. Capitalists abhor competition. Capitalists want to take over a market by any means possible.

"Competition is a sin"
John D Rockefeller

Bulldozers are figure of speech. Figure it out.

And Standard Oil was broken up into 30+ companies.

We have monopoly laws. Mergers are subject to approval by shareholders and government. For instance, under those laws, government rejected AT&T takeover of T-mobile.

All Rockefeller did was switch CONTROL of his oil monopoly to from the Standard Oil holding company to his charities and his banks. He STILL had complete CONTROL of his oil monopoly, he only passed OWNERSHIP to those entities he CONTROLLED.

For example, after Standard Oil was broken up into 33 separate companies Rockefeller OWNED only 25% on paper. So some stockholders tried to vote him off the board. Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies. Without OWNING 60% of the stock he voted 60% of the proxies and thus still CONTROLLED his oil monopoly just as he did before Standard Oil was "broken up!"

Banks are the loophole in the anti-trust laws. Banks, for example, may have pension funds from various sources deposited with them. The bank in turn buys stock IN THE NAME OF THE FUND. The fund OWNS the stock, but the bank CONTROLS the proxy vote of the stock!
That is how the real world works.
Get it?

"Own nothing. Control everything"
John D Rockefeller

You're wrong. For stock and fund I own, I also own a vote. For every shareholder meeting and proposal I receive documents in the "pre-meeting mailing package", where I cast my vote and send back to the bank or broker, and that's what vote by proxy means.
Now, as long they make profit for me, I got no reason to pull my money out. If they don't and I don't like what they're doing, nobody is forcing me to leave.

And regarding Rockefeller, I red that after breakup he actually turns richer then he was before. Good for him. As long he wasn't breaking laws, I got nothing against it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What I'm saying is, go out and buy your own healthcare like an Adult rather than ask the golden goose to supply it for you. You have a right to life, you make choices every day of your life. Tax payers shouldn't be penalized for your bad decision making, it's called learning from mistakes..

If you pay people a living wage then they can afford to purchase their own healthcare. But greedy conservatives are opposed to paying living wages so your premise that they must buy their own healthcare rebounds on you because you refuse to pay the golden goose enough to buy it's own health insurance.

That's the beautiful thing about Capitalism, people who work hard and strive to succeed will succeed with some effort, and by effort, that means you get your lazy ass off the couch and do something about it.
Didn't Charles Darwin talk about Survival of the Fittest??

Darwin wasn't talking about civilized societies. It is only because of civilization that mankind has become the dominant species. The social contract means that we support our fellow man (AKA in religion as love you brother like yourself.) Your misunderstanding of Darwinism and your willingness to throw your less fortunate American brethren under the bus means that you worship the Almighty Dollar above all else.

 

[kaz]

The liberal sees a hungry person and gives a fish thus feeding the hungry person for just one day.

The conservative teaches the hungry person how to fish thereby feeding the person for a life time.

Please, when do liberals ever give anyone their own fish?

 

[Dr Grump]

Conservatives like to conserve the status quo - no Civil liberties, no gay marriage, no abortion. That is the only meaning of conservative.

If one is mentally retarded - which you are.

So are all the conservation boards in the US full of Conservatives? Really? Aren't you guys always banging on about getting rid of the EPA? So now you're a fan? Cool

I like cash but not at the expense of fucking up everything else, Moron.

You like cash, especially when you can take it from your neighbors pocket.

You know nothing about me...I probably earn more in a month than you do in a year...

 

[Dr Grump]

Whoops my bad. Just saw when you arrived and how many posts. See the line under my name.

laters

For truth in advertising reasons, shouldn't the line under your name be changed to "fucking retard"?

Dunno. I'll change mine if you change yours to "I make Rand Paul look like a genius"

 

[healthmyths]

One way that Capitalists "bulldoze" their competition is in their marijuana eradication efforts, literally and figuratively.

Industrial hemp can provide the majority of the world's needs without 1% corporate control. There are millions of marijuana plants growing in the US right now and Monsanto doesn't own a single seed. Cannabis doesn't use most of the same chemicals and pesticides used on other crops, so Dow Chemical and DuPont won't make as much money if Americans are free to grow hemp. And marijuana as a natural medicine cannot be controlled by Johnson & Johnson or Pfizer, so industrialists outlawed their natural competition and the US Federal government has been compliant for 75 years despite numerous government reports admitting that Cannabis prohibition is a costly failure. There was also the brief period from 1942 - 1945 when the American government legalized "Marihuana" and urged Americans as young as 16 to grow it to help keep our nation free.

Gasoline can be made from hemp seeds. Food can also be made from hemp seeds. Paper, plastic, building materials, etc. can be made from hemp stalks. The female Cannabis plant which produces THC can treat and possibly cure cancer. All without corporate control.

HATE to bust your hazy thinking
but to convert ALL the farmland in the country to hemp so we could yield gas.. Would replace ONLY 35% of combined coal and oil use!


Do you understand?? YO! Under the consider the FACTS and stop using that stupid "gas made from HemP" Dopehead!

Osburn figured for the worst farmland. In fact, if we apply a realistic estimate of average yield—3.5 tons of usable biomass per acre—and suppose that hemp were to be grown on every single acre of arable cropland in the U. S. (421 million acres), we would only produce about 1.5 billion tons of hemp biomass per year. This probably sounds like a lot. However, according to the U.S. government (DOE, 2011) we used 6.8 billion barrels of petroleum and almost exactly 1 billion tons of coal in 2009; this amounts to 66 billion gigajoules of energy. If we burned all of that hemp biomass, it would optimistically yield 23 billion gigajoules (ORNL, 2011). In other words, even if we grew hemp on all the farmland in the country, it would only replace 35% of our combined coal and oil use—and this doesn’t even take natural gas into account. Obviously, hemp couldn’t even come close to replacing our fossil fuels.
http://hemphoax.org/hemp-as-a-biofuel/

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The difference between a Conservative and a liberal is

One of the many important differences between conservatives and liberals is that unlike you and many others on the right, liberals don’t believe that a women should be subject to forced sterilization as a consequence of having an abortion.