what so bad about socialism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I agree with your Thomas Jefferson;

."

about what exactly?????????

 

[Searcher44]

I agree with your Thomas Jefferson;

."

about what exactly?????????

You said, "our genius Founders came along with the realization that govt change had been the source of evil in human history."

I said I agree with Jefferson when he said;

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constitution]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."

Don't you think that Jefferson would have included government in those institutions that "must advance also, and keep pace with the times" That I agreed with that particular statement of his was my reply to your comment on govt change.

 

[Andylusion]

I agree with your Thomas Jefferson;

."

about what exactly?????????

You said, "our genius Founders came along with the realization that govt change had been the source of evil in human history."

I said I agree with Jefferson when he said;

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constitution]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."

Don't you think that Jefferson would have included government in those institutions that "must advance also, and keep pace with the times" That I agreed with that particular statement of his was my reply to your comment on govt change.

I still don't exactly know what your position is on this.... but I'll give my take on it.

The right-wing sees the concept of "institutional advancement", as allowing for the accommodation of the Air Force, as a branch of the military. As protecting property rights over broadcast spectrum, so one radio or TV station, can't just knock another off the air. As adapting to the advent of the internet, and privatizing the USPS since it no longer serves national security interest.

This is our idea of institutional advance to accommodate modern society. And that is what we believe Jefferson was talking about.

The left-wing, seems to view institutional advance, as regressing to ideals that were proven wrong, and rejected by the framers of the constitution. Like intrusive government control, and unrestrained democracy.

Even Jefferson said "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Yes, prevent people from directly harming each other, but others.... free to regulate their own pursuits, and mentions specifically industry. And shall not take from the mouth of labor, the bread it has earned.

Yet that is exactly what the left wing does, all while quoting Jefferson.

 

[Searcher44]

I agree with your Thomas Jefferson;

."

about what exactly?????????

You said, "our genius Founders came along with the realization that govt change had been the source of evil in human history."

I said I agree with Jefferson when he said;

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constitution]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."

Don't you think that Jefferson would have included government in those institutions that "must advance also, and keep pace with the times" That I agreed with that particular statement of his was my reply to your comment on govt change.

I still don't exactly know what your position is on this.... but I'll give my take on it.

The right-wing sees the concept of "institutional advancement", as allowing for the accommodation of the Air Force, as a branch of the military. As protecting property rights over broadcast spectrum, so one radio or TV station, can't just knock another off the air. As adapting to the advent of the internet, and privatizing the USPS since it no longer serves national security interest.

This is our idea of institutional advance to accommodate modern society. And that is what we believe Jefferson was talking about.

The left-wing, seems to view institutional advance, as regressing to ideals that were proven wrong, and rejected by the framers of the constitution. Like intrusive government control, and unrestrained democracy.

Even Jefferson said "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Yes, prevent people from directly harming each other, but others.... free to regulate their own pursuits, and mentions specifically industry. And shall not take from the mouth of labor, the bread it has earned.

Yet that is exactly what the left wing does, all while quoting Jefferson.

I don't see much to disagree with in your post, except of course your very generalized non-specific comment on the Left."the left-wing, seems to view institutional advance, as regressing to ideals that were proven wrong, and rejected by the framers of the constitution. Like intrusive government control, and unrestrained democracy."
And I totally agree with your Jefferson quote although I suspect we might disagree on what "prevent people from directly harming each other" might include. For instance I think giving corporations so much power over governance by the people through things like so much money in elections and more or less unrestricted lobbying is directly harming the citizens of your country.
I have to note the irony of this part of the quote "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." in light of the fact that he was a slave owner.
Also I note that part could be used as comment on the fact that while the productivity of American workers has increased significantly in the last 30 yrs. their real wages have not and that is one reason that let's the NYT come up with stats that lead to the headline The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest. That too is a harm to American citizens that could have been avoided by restraining greed. I say laws like your Campaign Finance regulations are intrusive and destructive to democracy. I can see that we would probably disagree on the changes necessary to make your society fairer but those are disagreements that will be settled through the democratic process eventually.

 

[danielpalos]

what is so bad about socialism; it merely and only requires, social morals for free.

 

[Andylusion]

I agree with your Thomas Jefferson;

."

about what exactly?????????

You said, "our genius Founders came along with the realization that govt change had been the source of evil in human history."

I said I agree with Jefferson when he said;

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constitution]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."

Don't you think that Jefferson would have included government in those institutions that "must advance also, and keep pace with the times" That I agreed with that particular statement of his was my reply to your comment on govt change.

I still don't exactly know what your position is on this.... but I'll give my take on it.

The right-wing sees the concept of "institutional advancement", as allowing for the accommodation of the Air Force, as a branch of the military. As protecting property rights over broadcast spectrum, so one radio or TV station, can't just knock another off the air. As adapting to the advent of the internet, and privatizing the USPS since it no longer serves national security interest.

This is our idea of institutional advance to accommodate modern society. And that is what we believe Jefferson was talking about.

The left-wing, seems to view institutional advance, as regressing to ideals that were proven wrong, and rejected by the framers of the constitution. Like intrusive government control, and unrestrained democracy.

Even Jefferson said "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Yes, prevent people from directly harming each other, but others.... free to regulate their own pursuits, and mentions specifically industry. And shall not take from the mouth of labor, the bread it has earned.

Yet that is exactly what the left wing does, all while quoting Jefferson.

I don't see much to disagree with in your post, except of course your very generalized non-specific comment on the Left."the left-wing, seems to view institutional advance, as regressing to ideals that were proven wrong, and rejected by the framers of the constitution. Like intrusive government control, and unrestrained democracy."
And I totally agree with your Jefferson quote although I suspect we might disagree on what "prevent people from directly harming each other" might include. For instance I think giving corporations so much power over governance by the people through things like so much money in elections and more or less unrestricted lobbying is directly harming the citizens of your country.
I have to note the irony of this part of the quote "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." in light of the fact that he was a slave owner.
Also I note that part could be used as comment on the fact that while the productivity of American workers has increased significantly in the last 30 yrs. their real wages have not and that is one reason that let's the NYT come up with stats that lead to the headline The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest. That too is a harm to American citizens that could have been avoided by restraining greed. I say laws like your Campaign Finance regulations are intrusive and destructive to democracy. I can see that we would probably disagree on the changes necessary to make your society fairer but those are disagreements that will be settled through the democratic process eventually.

Well honestly, I see very little evidence corporations have any real control over governance.

They have influence, yes. But very little power. I didn't see GM controlling how their bankruptcy was handled by the government. The Unions did. That demanded, and got, everything they wanted.

And honestly, if you want to eliminate lobbying, start with the Unions, Freddie and Fannie, environmentalists groups, green energy groups, and a million others.

The whole reason we have a lobbying going on, is because we're not following the "wise and frugal" government Jefferson talked about. The reason lobbying exists, is because government is handing out money. When government hands out money, people are going to try and influence where that money goes.

If the government was handing out ZERO grants for research, there would be no lobbying by companies to get those grants.

Lastly, the New York times is wrong. Sorry, wrong. I've been to Europe. We live higher standards of living, than they do, and by far. There is no harm to the American citizens from that perspective. It is flat out *wrong*. That crap about how we're declining, is garbage. Now I think we will decline... yeah. But as things stand today.... no. We have the highest standard of living in the world. There is no place, where you can live better, than here in the US.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't you think that Jefferson would have included government in those institutions that "must advance.

dear, Jefferson wanted the advancement always in the direction of freedom, not in the direction or monarchy, communism or liberalism.

Now do you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

dear; too big to fail merely provides a social safety net for the status quo.

 

[Searcher44]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

 

[danielpalos]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

 

[Searcher44]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

When you say something like "Marx killed 120 million people" you lose all credibility, if you had any to start with.

 

[Indeependent]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

Who do you think can afford and supports Dodd/Frank...Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan.
GS & JPM don't want competition.
Competition will cost them more than complying with Dodd/Frank.
Oh, "How do you know this?".
Easy...I have lots of friends who work on Wall Street.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you say something like "Marx killed 120 million people" you lose all credibility, if you had any to start with.

dear, care to tell us how many millions you think he killed?

 

[Indeependent]

When you say something like "Marx killed 120 million people" you lose all credibility, if you had any to start with.

dear, care to tell us how many millions you think he killed?

Americans aren't starving because the ever shrinking Middle Class is subsidizing them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

Who do you think can afford and supports Dodd/Frank...Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan.
GS & JPM don't want competition.
Competition will cost them more than complying with Dodd/Frank.
Oh, "How do you know this?".
Easy...I have lots of friends who work on Wall Street.

so are you trying to say the Dodd Frank eliminates competition or don't you have any idea what you are trying to say???

 

[Indeependent]

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

how many regulations are there that make it too expensive to compete in some markets in the US?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

Who do you think can afford and supports Dodd/Frank...Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan.
GS & JPM don't want competition.
Competition will cost them more than complying with Dodd/Frank.
Oh, "How do you know this?".
Easy...I have lots of friends who work on Wall Street.

so are you trying to say the Dodd Frank eliminates competition or don't you have any idea what you are trying to say???

Dodd Frank eliminates competition.

 

[Searcher44]

I think giving corporations so much power over governance.

100% stupid and liberal. If they had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx but lack the IQ to know it.

I have often quoted Marx as I do others of many different ideologies who have done a lot of thinking about how society should work. Did you burn his works?

100% stupid and liberal. If corporations had control over government they would firstly seek to get rid of the competition so they could become instant billionaires. Do you see that happening? No, you are merely parroting Marx after he slowly killed 120 million but lack the IQ to know it.

Jesus you're thick. They haven't tried to get rid of competition? I'll mention the consolidation of financial power into the hands of a few institutions. You don't think they influenced the laws that allowed that to happen? They probably wrote the fucking laws. Grow up man.