You are likely correct; I have lots of products produced by communists and fascists. Being successful selling into a market doesn't make one a capitalist; it just puts you in the same category as China.
You are likely correct; I have lots of products produced by communists and fascists. Being successful selling into a market doesn't make one a capitalist; it just puts you in the same category as China.
In reply to alfadriver:
Remeber, wcelliot is the guy who has personally changed the way the political spectrum works to suit his own radical agenda. He now lumps the republicans, democrats, fascists, communists, and socialists all together. This is a device the baggers have adopted to separate themselves from everyone and allow them to hurl insults at everyone.
It's a very clever device. I admire the ability of the conservatives and baggers(they're the same), to craft a message and use it to dominate the narrative. They're much better at PR than any liberal group.
anyway this thread is screwed...
wcelliot wrote: You are likely correct; I have lots of products produced by communists and fascists. Being successful selling into a market doesn't make one a capitalist; it just puts you in the same category as China.
China actually is one of the most capitalist places in the world right now.
Own a remington shotgun or ever owned one produced in Ilion, NY? I helped set up that barrel shop.
In reply to Ignorant:
Would you return my Phillips' head, please? I've been missing it.
I apologize; sometimes I give you too much credit. The you post something like this and I remember that you really don't have an understanding of political or economic philosophy.
My "radical agenda" is to be left the F alone.... what's sad is that today the philosophy of individual rights and strictly limited Government that the US was founded on is today indeed considered radical while views like yours (once the sole property of anti-American radicals) are mainstream.
Be happy you've won. I hope your children enjoy your type of country.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Ignorant: Would you return my Phillips' head, please? I've been missing it.
I have been meaning to return it, but as I'm now Hugo Chavez, I just banned personal property and renamed your screwdriver the "The peoples tool for adjusting fasteners in the glorious revolution against the evil capitalist pig dogs."
Ignorant wrote:poopshovel wrote: I think he's destroying liberty in this country faster and more efficiently than Bush did, but I'll certainly credit the guy with doing exactly what the berkeley he said he was going to.How?
Anyone going to answer this allegation? I am really curious.
wcelliot wrote: I apologize; sometimes I give you too much credit. The you post something like this and I remember that you really don't have an understanding of political or economic philosophy. My "radical agenda" is to be left the F alone.... what's sad is that today the philosophy of individual rights and strictly limited Government that the US was founded on is today indeed considered radical while views like yours (once the sole property of anti-American radicals) are mainstream. Be happy you've won. I hope your children enjoy your type of country.
So you want someone else to pay for all the services that you benefit from? Roads? Defense (54% of the budget if you include retirees by the way)? Air traffic management? Police? Fire? Schools? What, are these people paid too much? Give me a break. Read Upton Sinclair. That's why unions exist. They have gotten too big and powerful, yes.
I read this, and wasn't going to dip a toe, but I get irritated by those who think they live in this world that doesn't require money to operate the things that they use. We have one of the lowest marginal tax rates in the world. Pay your berkeleying share and get over yourself. The situation is berkeleyed right now, because there are too many talking heads, too many people watching out for their own jobs, and not enough of what made/makes this country great, and what I still believe can make us great: cooperation, and common purpose. If you want to live on an island and not pay anything to anyone, go for it.
I never said that I didn't think that I should pay my "fair share"... but it's absolutely reasonable for me to question the "services that I benefit from" and therefore what my "fair share" is.
I think the limitations of the Federal Government as laid out by our Constitution are reasonable. There are certain functions that are best done at the Federal level and they are recognized there. More beyond that and we have some issues.
The Founding Fathers also realized that the more intrusive aspects of Goverment should be reserves to levels of Government closer to the individual for more accountability. That's why the powers not specifically granted the Feds were reserved for the states.
The Federal Government has no business providng many of the "services" that it does and I have no guilt in claiming that I should not be paying for those. I also have no guilt in using them since I am paying for them.
The situation is berkeleyed right now because too many people think they have the right to use other people's money to do things with... "cooperation and common purpose" is not 51% deciding that that they have the right to confiscate wealth and property from others... even if they think it is for the good of society overall.
Being alturistic with your money is laudable. Being alturistic with mine is theft.
If leftists really wanted the high ground on this issue (as you seem to be trying to take here), they would give more of their personal wealth to the causes they believe in... as it is, the folks (like me) who think that the Government's role should be the most limited contribute significantly more of their own personal wealth for the good of society than leftists even think think about.
So before you try to take the moral high ground with me, you'd best look in the mirror first. I pay far more than my "fair share" not matter how you want to define it. Criticise only if you can say the same.
wcelliot wrote: I apologize; sometimes I give you too much credit. The you post something like this and I remember that you really don't have an understanding of political or economic philosophy that I have interpreted to be correct.
Fixed it for you...
Many ways to skin a cat.. Your's just happens to be pretty selfish.
Selfish. Read my previous post and cast the first stone if you can measure up. With YOUR money.
I was not making a value call on which political or economic philosophy was superior (though obviously I have my opinions there), just making the point that from your recent posts that you don't understand the basics of the field so are incapable of intellectual debate on the subject. Like basic definitions.
You propably know more about rifle barrels than I do. I happen to have a lot of education and experience in this field.
Edit... a very good question... now erased was asked. The question was "Could the truth lie somewhere between you two"? My answer below:
"Turth" as far as defintions? No, there is only one "truth" there. That is a matter of fact.
"Truth" as far as what economic/political philosophy the US was founded on? No, similarly, only one "truth" there as well.
"Truth" as to what's best for the country moving forward? Absolutely likely... I claim no "magic opinion" on what's best for the country, only an educated opinion. But it's opinion and not fact.
The US could well be better off with a benevolent dicator or state capitalism like China.... it's just my opinion (based on a study of history) that it wouldn't be... but I absolutely conceed that it could be.
My main beef with ignorance has more to do with matters of fact than opinion...
This sort of thing happens a lot, especially in when Texas tries to reapportion their voting districts...
wcelliot wrote: I was not making a value call on which political or economic philosophy was superior (though obviously I have my opinions there), just making the point that from your recent posts that you don't understand the basics of the field so are incapable of intellectual debate on the subject. Like basic definitions.
Actually, I argue exactly the same about you. You have changed all of the basic definitions to suit yor specific agenda. It's a powerful and one that you have used effectively to dupe many..
Sorry.
Also I really liked how you called me unamerican before. That was quite good. You are well versed in the tools of the right wing PR machine. Very very good. I admire your PR skills.
Ignorant wrote:wcelliot wrote: I was not making a value call on which political or economic philosophy was superior (though obviously I have my opinions there), just making the point that from your recent posts that you don't understand the basics of the field so are incapable of intellectual debate on the subject. Like basic definitions.Actually, I argue exactly the same about you. You have changed all of the basic definitions to suit yor specific agenda. I
i'd be very interested to hear these basic definitions as defined by each of you to see how fundamental the differences are. obviously if you cant agree on the terms of an argument the rest of the argument is moot.
WilberM3 wrote:Ignorant wrote:i'd be very interested to hear these basic definitions as defined by each of you to see how fundamental the differences are. obviously if you cant agree on the terms of an argument the rest of the argument is moot.wcelliot wrote: I was not making a value call on which political or economic philosophy was superior (though obviously I have my opinions there), just making the point that from your recent posts that you don't understand the basics of the field so are incapable of intellectual debate on the subject. Like basic definitions.Actually, I argue exactly the same about you. You have changed all of the basic definitions to suit yor specific agenda. I
He defines facisits and communists and socials to be effectively the same thing.
While they sort of utilize similar means to do things, they are all fundamentally different. Facisim is effectively right wing while socialism and communisim are left wing. Never the twain shall meet. I pretty much stick the accepted general definitions of such... I'm not the guy trying to convince the world(like most of the baggers do).. that what is generally accepted definitons are incorrect.
EDIT:
Here, I'll put the difference between me and that other guy...
Here is the political specturm as most of the world agrees to:
It's not perfect, but it's really not bad.
Here is what this guy and the baggers believe:
Ignorant wrote: Recently, it seems as if, We're all on some gigantic witch hunt to find out why we're in this big economic mess. As with all witch hunts, It seems that the main purpose is to blame someone else for problems in which we have all played our part.
my fingers are literally willfully pressing the wrong keys in an attempt to keep me from saying this, but you and I agree completely
. We, America, Collectively, Private, Public, Corporate, and other, all need to suck it up - me included. Greed and rampant spending have gotten us where we are. Saving, cuts, and thrift are THE ONLY solutions to get us back.
Its gotta get bad before it can get good again. Soon they will come after insert whatever industry/profession/special interest group you work for/area a part of here , and you will feel the sting too. The smart squirrel saves nuts for when he doesnt have them...
This is fun.
4cylndrfury wrote: Its gotta get bad before it can get good again.
100% agree
No path but forward
no better time than now.
oldsaw wrote: The Patriot Act is a great example for governmental excess just begging for abuse. It's great that the current administration has rescinded it, just like it has with Gitmo.
Agree with you.
Ignorant wrote: He defines facisits and communists and socials to be effectively the same thing. While they sort of utilize similar means to do things, they are all fundamentally different. Facisim is effectively right wing while socialism and communisim are left wing. Never the twain shall meet.
This level of dunderstanding reflects a sophomoric grasp of political and economic philosophies and is insufficient for intelligent debate.
You are philosophically much more fascist than socialist (there are some key differences)... yet you claim to be a leftist...
And there is apparently no room in your scale for capitalism (which is the polar opposite of both of your collectivist philosophies.)
I'm out; you can pay for your own education. I'm selfish like that.
wcelliot wrote:Ignorant wrote: He defines facisits and communists and socials to be effectively the same thing. While they sort of utilize similar means to do things, they are all fundamentally different. Facisim is effectively right wing while socialism and communisim are left wing. Never the twain shall meet.This level of dunderstanding reflects a sophomoric grasp of political and economic philosophies and is insufficient for intelligent debate. You are philosophically much more fascist than socialist (there are some key differences)... yet you claim to be a leftist... And there is apparently no room in your scale for capitalism (which is the polar opposite of both of your collectivist philosophies.) I'm out; you can pay for your own education. I'm selfish like that.
Blah blah blah... I effectively hear "you don't prescribe to my school of thought and therefore I'm not going to talk to you".
z31maniac wrote:alfadriver wrote: So if your job compensation changes, your only recorse is to quit? Seriously? The right of compensation chages lies totally with your employer, so if that they scew the pooch and loose a bunch of money, none of which is due to you- your compensation, and your job, can be cut???That's how it happens in every single industry BUT government.
Welcome to the real world alfadriver, I am going through this right now, as a driver and business owner, fuel is skyrocketing and our suppliers are reducing our income. I may not have a business soon due to nothing I can control
alfadriver wrote:novaderrik wrote: they were hired by the state because they applied. they took the job because they agreed to the terms of employment and compensation. if the compensation changes, they can either stay or leave and find a different job. mo one is entitled to a job or to a certain compensation package just because they have it. maybe the unemployed people that are looking for jobs would be willing to do the work. remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day. free market ftw..So if your job compensation changes, your only recorse is to quit? Seriously? The right of compensation chages lies totally with your employer, so if that they scew the pooch and loose a bunch of money, none of which is due to you- your compensation, and your job, can be cut??? Really? That's what you call free market? Are we in the early 1900's or something? Workers have rights for reasons, most of them have to do with poor management- working conditions, minimum wages, hours, etc- every single labor law can be sourced to management issues. So instead of fixing the management, lets just change the compensation. Unions make it easy to management to negotiate ONCE. I find is just stunning how many time people assume that you can just go an get another job if you don't like it. Can we stop with that assumption? Can YOU go an get another job in your field- so you can quit today? I doubt it. ***chopped out a bunch more text here***
you seem to be operating under the assumption that not only is everyone entitled to a job, but that they are entitled to a job in their chosen field at a pay level that they are accustomed to or think they deserve. the fact is that no one is entitled to any job or any pay level- if you want to make good money at a job you like, then be the best you can at what you do and prove to your employer exactly why you are worth more than the next guy.
if an employer or an industry tries to cut pay or benefits below a certain level, they will either not be able to find help or the help they find will be worth exactly the amount they are being compensated. if they follow this path too far and for too long, they fail and go out of business.
and each individual can be thought of as a small business- if they do substandard work, they should get substandard pay or not even have a job to go to. someone else out there will do it better than them, and they should get the job.
unions served a purpose 100 years ago- but their purpose went away over time and they have been in decline for the last 50 years. all this whining and crying about "workers rights" in the age of the EPA, OSHA, minimum wage laws, and other worker protections that are guaranteed by laws at the local, state and federal level kind of renders unions to the status of a quaint reminder of days gone by.
can you honestly tell me the last time a union has led to a better product at a lower cost to the consumer while protecting the jobs of the people they claim to protect? with a quick google search, i could probably find many examples of unions causing American factories to close and ship those jobs to other countries. i could also find many, many examples of union leadership living like kings on the backs of the workers that they claim to represent.
wcelliot wrote: You are confusing commercial unions (which are a vital part of the free market system) with public unions which have no defendable role.
How do you figure that a public union does not serve the same purpose as a private union. Are you assuming that because the management in this case works for the gov't they follow the law? Most unions spend far more time protecting workers from managers who seem to think that laws don't apply to them than the do with salaries that come up every 3-4 years.
You'll need to log in to post.
