The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2013, 04:43 PM   #26
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,801

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

What the poor people of America need is their own lobbyist.

Oh, that's right. They can't afford one.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 04:45 PM   #27
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This one is particularly fun:

Quote:
DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.
Pretty much the root cause of the current fiasco: the removal of Glass–Steagall. All in the name of "Market Regulation"
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 04:59 PM   #28
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post

Where has laissez-faire capitalism worked? It's just as flawed a policy as communism.
It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.


Quote:
The people making it harder on everyone are the corporations who have subverted government for their own purposes.
I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.


Quote:
"Market Regulation" is nothing but code for "he who has the most money, wins".
That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness.

I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.

You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.

The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.

Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:00 PM   #29
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
This one is particularly fun:



Pretty much the root cause of the current fiasco: the removal of Glass–Steagall. All in the name of "Market Regulation"
Day Twelve is easily the best one, but it has nothing to do with Glass-Steagall. This is the second time you've made me cringe. I think I'm going to go wash my car so I don't have to suffer a third.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:02 PM   #30
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
What the poor people of America need is their own lobbyist.

Oh, that's right. They can't afford one.
They could be their own lobbyist in a true Republic where the power of the Federal Government yields to the power of the States - like it's supposed to be. It's easier for people to drive to their own capital than to drive to DC.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:23 PM   #31
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,184
Default

Love the Rockwell "plan". Pure liberfoolian porn.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:28 PM   #32
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,233

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
They could be their own lobbyist in a true Republic where the power of the Federal Government yields to the power of the States - like it's supposed to be. It's easier for people to drive to their own capital than to drive to DC.
that war was lost over a century ago. this is the United states of america not 50 seperate countries of N. america. you want this country to turn into the EU?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:38 PM   #33
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,233

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.




I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.




That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness.

I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.

You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.

The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.

Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.
that's flat out assinine. what you do is shrink the influence of corporation over government,and return it to the people. Shrink government!? you got it ass backwards,but then again most liberatarians do. you agree there's a problem with the corporations influence over gov. and your answer is to go after the government. why not go after the core root of the problem,which is these corporations and these corparate lapdogs,such as liberatarians,rethugs and dems who sell out there constituents to these corporate raiders,for lack of a better word.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:07 PM   #34
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Let's take an even closer look at some of these polls, too. First up is the McClatchy poll Breitbart references here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ercent-approve

And the link to the actual poll:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/2...on-voting.html

First question we'll look at is:

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to require voters to show ID in order to vote?

83% of non-whites say yes...notice though, the poll question says nothing about requiring a long, convoluted process to get said ID. I wonder what the results would be then?

Second question:


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow early voting before Election Day?

74% of non-whites and 65% of whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow voters to vote on the Sunday before the election?

60% of whites, 64% of non-whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to have same day registration?

53% of whites, 66% of non-whites say it's a good thing.



So you have to ask yourself...which party is seeking to institute convoluted Voter ID laws, close down polling places and shrink voting days?

Which party does Rand Paul belong to?

How exactly does Paul plan on winning over black and other non-white voters when his own party embarks on phony crusades such as these again?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:29 PM   #35
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Let's take an even closer look at some of these polls, too. First up is the McClatchy poll Breitbart references here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ercent-approve

And the link to the actual poll:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/2...on-voting.html

First question we'll look at is:

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to require voters to show ID in order to vote?

83% of non-whites say yes...notice though, the poll question says nothing about requiring a long, convoluted process to get said ID. I wonder what the results would be then?

Second question:


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow early voting before Election Day?

74% of non-whites and 65% of whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to allow voters to vote on the Sunday before the election?

60% of whites, 64% of non-whites say it's a good thing.


Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to have same day registration?

53% of whites, 66% of non-whites say it's a good thing.



So you have to ask yourself...which party is seeking to institute convoluted Voter ID laws, close down polling places and shrink voting days?

Which party does Rand Paul belong to?

How exactly does Paul plan on winning over black and other non-white voters when his own party embarks on phony crusades such as these again?
Again, I'm not interested in the demagoguery aspect of this. There is nothing fundamentally racist with requiring ID for things like driving, voting, or buying beer.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:33 PM   #36
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
that's flat out assinine. what you do is shrink the influence of corporation over government,and return it to the people. Shrink government!? you got it ass backwards,but then again most liberatarians do. you agree there's a problem with the corporations influence over gov. and your answer is to go after the government. why not go after the core root of the problem,which is these corporations and these corparate lapdogs,such as liberatarians,rethugs and dems who sell out there constituents to these corporate raiders,for lack of a better word.

The only way to shrink the influence of corporations over government is to shrink the influence of government itself. Government is great when kept chained to its proper societal role. It's awful, though, when it grows too big, and can reach as far as it wishes.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:45 PM   #37
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,184
Default

Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:52 PM   #38
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Again, I'm not interested in the demagoguery aspect of this. There is nothing fundamentally racist with requiring ID for things like driving, voting, or buying beer.
Weren't you the one who brought up the polling?

And where did we say this was racist? We simply said (time and time again) that Voter ID laws (as well as the other issues you fail to address) target minorities moreso than any other voting bloc.

And on top of that, as it relates to the topic of this thread...You can be as uninterested in the "demagoguery" as you like. I'm telling you that Rand Paul's stance on mandatory minimum sentences will do next to nothing to help his status with non-white voters when his party is seen as trying to shrink the electorate.

So keep dodging and deflecting in the name of "not getting into demagoguery" , but the basic premise of your thread is fundamentally flawed, bud.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 07:20 PM   #39
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,318

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?
Right to bear arms. ..
ant1999e is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 07:49 PM   #40
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,801

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
The only way to shrink the influence of corporations over government is to shrink the influence of government itself. Government is great when kept chained to its proper societal role. It's awful, though, when it grows too big, and can reach as far as it wishes.
As Lincoln and TR talked about, the Industrial Revolution created a new reality. As TR said, we unleashed corporate powers the founders could not have foreseen. If we did not put reins on them, they would do exactly what they are doing now. As he put it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

It doesn't matter what size the government is if it's for sale to the highest bidder.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:14 PM   #41
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Is voting a right or a privilege? If it's a right, no ID required. Why does a libertarian approve of requiring an ID to enact a right?
I don't approve. I don't object. This issue is pretty much a wash for me. If people want a large welfare state, things like ID at voting booths seem like table stakes to me. I won't advocate for them, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's inherently racist to ask for ID at the voting booth.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:19 PM   #42
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And where did we say this was racist? We simply said (time and time again) that Voter ID laws (as well as the other issues you fail to address) target minorities moreso than any other voting bloc.
IDs don't target any one group. It's a blanket requirement that everyone has to conform to.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:22 PM   #43
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
As Lincoln and TR talked about, the Industrial Revolution created a new reality. As TR said, we unleashed corporate powers the founders could not have foreseen. If we did not put reins on them, they would do exactly what they are doing now. As he put it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

It doesn't matter what size the government is if it's for sale to the highest bidder.
Government is always for sale to the highest bidder, period. That's why it needs to be limited in its scope so that those who would try to buy it get diminished returns.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:49 PM   #44
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,801

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Government is always for sale to the highest bidder, period. That's why it needs to be limited in its scope so that those who would try to buy it get diminished returns.
Been there, done that. There was a time, between about 1880 and 1900 or so, when the government had less power than some of these corporations. Many of them had their own police forces and their own towns. They were the law. They enslaved people. The workers owed their souls to the company store. Get out of line and they bust your head, fire you from your job and toss you and your family from your company owned home. And if labor tried to come together and protest, they were beaten and killed.

The regulations on corporations didn't come about because bored politicians had nothing else to do. It was in reaction to the tyranny these corporate combines (as they called them back then) imposed on workers. Progressive government rose in answer to a need, not simply out of ideological fantasy. And looked what happened the second the regulations in response to the Depression were dismantled? Right back to the same old ponzi scheme. A weak government and strong corporations just create another type of tyranny.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 09-21-2013 at 11:12 PM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:54 PM   #45
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Been there, done that. There was a time, between about 1880 and 1900 or so, when the government had less power than some of these corporations. Many of them had their own police forces and their own towns. They were the law. They enslaved people. The workers owed their souls to the company store. Get out of line and they bust your head, fire you from your job and toss you and your family from your company owned home. And if labor tried to come together and protest, they were beaten and killed.

The regulations on corporations didn't come about because bored politicians had nothing else to do. It was in reaction to the tyranny they imposed on workers. Progressive government rose in answer to a need, not simply out of ideological fantasy. And looked what happened the second the regulations in response to the Depression were dismantled? Right back to the same old ponzi scheme. A weak government and strong corporations just create another type of tyranny.
I have to wonder how many of the people here on this board were either home schooled or just didn't pay attention to 9th grade History class.

Or believe it didn't happen (coughgaffandbajacough).
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 12:46 AM   #46
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
It worked here. It made us the richest nation in the world. We've since done what we could to muzzle it, but it worked here pretty great. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else going.
LMAO Please do go into detail. In what period did we become the richest nation in the world? How did the economy of that time align with laissez-faire principals?

Should be a riot!

You take shot about cringing, and then spout the above lunacy. Is this some sort of performance art you're doing to drive traffic?


Quote:
I definitely agree with this. That's why I advocate shrinking the influence of government, because it is the tool that the corporations use to stuff their cushions.
Are you really daft enough to think that shrinking government in the way and scale you advocate will reduce corporate influence?

What's needed is to create a separation of corporation and state, much like we have a separation of church and state. The responsibility of corporations (to engage in economic activity) should not be mixed with the responsibilities of government (to regulate economic activity).

Your wet dream of getting rid of the regulation aspect is absurd.

Quote:
That's kind of an embarrassing thing to say, don't you think? It's such an empty statement. Every system you can imagine results in "he who has the most money, wins." To ascribe it to "market regulation" is a little cringey in it's blanket obtuseness. I get that you think "Market Regulation" mean anarchy, but it's misguided to think so. "Market Regulation" means that consumers have to care about their consumption. "Government Regulation" has the opposite effect - consumers stop caring because they think government is capable of doing their jobs - they're not. Corporations end up manning the wheels of government, and then using the vehicle to drive over the top of the rest of us.
It's not at all embarrassing. What's embarrassing is that apparently you can't think outside of extremes and black and whites (which is pretty typical of ideologues).

Pure market regulation (i.e. laissez-faire) is just the opposite side of the coin to pure centralized control (communism). Both look great on paper, and fail miserably in practice. The most successful systems (e.g. the system that actually brought us to be the richest nation in the world) lie in between those two extremes.

Laissez-faire results in all the the wealth and power being concentrated in the hands of a very tiny minority because there is nothing to control the big monied interests from abusing the little guys. Under a system of well regulated capitalism, the large monied interests are restrained from the worst of their excesses.


Quote:
You and I ultimately have the same enemy - the out of control people who can't get enough. The difference is, you think that you can harness them through government, and I think that government is the greatest tool that they have to harness us with. So you work to give the machine more power for the good of the people, and I work to give the machine less power for the good of the people.
No, I want to separate government and the monied interests. You want to surrender to the monied interests.

Quote:
The rich are always going to exist. There will always be the haves and have nots. I'd just rather have a system where the have nots have a chance for more upward mobility, and that's through making the entry into business ownership easier for them, not harder.
In a purely market driven system there is effectively zero upward mobility. There is nothing to protect a small business from being destroyed by the bigger businesses.

How successful do you think you'd be starting up an innovative small business when there are no anti-trust laws?

Quote:
Tying this back to voter regulation - I would rather have less regulations than more. But I don't see it as inherently racist to think people should be credentialed to vote.
Stop with the bullsh*t, dishonest attempts to tie what is being said to racism. You've already been corrected on this several times. Either engage honestly or don't engage.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 04:40 AM   #47
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,575

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

It's all the usual stuff. Nothing new under the sun. Business is bad. Government is good. Everything would be great if it weren't for those pesky humans and their pesky desire to make money. Why can't everyone be like me and not care about money, and just care about people. Hey look at all the stuff I have from all these evil corporations.

And then I get told I'm not engaging honestly... go figure.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 07:17 AM   #48
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,958

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

More black republicans? Oh, a liberal's worst nightmare. How to demean all of them and not be racist in the process. What a dilemma. Oh, wait, they have deemed themselves judge and jury what is racism and what isn't, so while it's racist to criticize Obama and all minority democrats, it isn't to do so with minority republicans. That's, uh, different. Yeah.
barryr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 10:42 AM   #49
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
It's all the usual stuff. Nothing new under the sun. Business is bad. Government is good. Everything would be great if it weren't for those pesky humans and their pesky desire to make money. Why can't everyone be like me and not care about money, and just care about people. Hey look at all the stuff I have from all these evil corporations.

And then I get told I'm not engaging honestly... go figure.
Oh look, more attempts to avoid the discussion with strawmen arguments -- which is just another form of dishonesty from you.

If you don't like being called dishonest, don't act in a dishonest fashion. Don't continue to prop of strawmen arguments. Respond to what people are saying, don't just make up B.S. to avoid dealing with the actual conversation -- especially after you've already been corrected multiple times.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 09-22-2013 at 10:47 AM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 11:25 AM   #50
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Oh look, more attempts to avoid the discussion with strawmen arguments -- which is just another form of dishonesty from you.

If you don't like being called dishonest, don't act in a dishonest fashion. Don't continue to prop of strawmen arguments. Respond to what people are saying, don't just make up B.S. to avoid dealing with the actual conversation -- especially after you've already been corrected multiple times.
He's a coward.

Or at least gutless...I can't speak to his BAC, though.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Denver Broncos