RE: On tyranny. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:02:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The idea that innovation is a private or corporate monopoly is a self serving myth, usually promoted by the very same interests that the myth serves.



yes that is why we have WORLDWIDE WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION, whos "interests" did putting the kabash on that serve?


How about the global warming fraud? whos interests did that serve?










Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:05:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Innovations come from academic research as well.



yeh so MIT can fake cold fusion reports to continue to get funding for their hot fusion! LMAO

for shits sake




Musicmystery -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:07:30 PM)

And how does that mean some innovations don't come from academic research?

For shit's sake.




Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:14:07 PM)

you shifted my point

how about MIT via the DOE monopolizing the fusion

~blind academic




Musicmystery -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:18:40 PM)

Here's your reasoning:

Some business go under. Therefore all businesses go under.

Unless you want to claim no innovation has ever come from academia, you've shifted the point from what the rest of us were talking about.

The MIT example is irrelevant to the point.




Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:20:10 PM)

the op included version I put up as well


the MIT example is the point

likewise that we could have power transmission for electric cars and rid this place of all the fucking wires scattered through out the country and waste of copper.

of course the electric company having a monopoly will own al that copper now wont they

~innovative!










xssve -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 3:57:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

The blessings of Corporatism? 1. Innovation. 2. Innovation. 3. Innovation. 4. Etc.
'

'Private enterprise doesn't have a monopoly on innovation at all.

In the USA, look at all the innovation that is sourced in the NASA program for example. In most countries, a great deal of cutting edge research and innovation are carried out in State funded universities. The same applies in the area of health, where national health schemes are operative.

The idea that innovation is a private or corporate monopoly is a self serving myth, usually promoted by the very same interests that the myth serves.

quote:

The blessings of Corporatism? 1. Innovation. 2. Innovation. 3. Innovation. 4. Etc.


In praxis, the government funds basic research, usually at universities, that research, publicly funded, is published, at public expense, and you can write to Pueblo for a list of these publications which you can then purchase at nominal expense.

Corporations do this, take that basic research and do applied research which they then use to develop products.

So, when corporate apologists and PR flacks talk about corporate research, they're usually talking about applied research based on basic research done at public expense: basic research is expensive, and it doesn't create products, that's applied research. There is no return on basic research in the monetary sense, all you get is data, it has to be turned into a product and marketed before it can generate a financial return.

i.e, nobody made a Dime off the W3C's basic research into data sharing protocols, TCPIP, HTML, etc., or Gore's 600m public investment in net research and browsers, until it was used to generate product, bandwidth providers, servers, etc., to carry those websites, and a market for websites, and that generated a lot of profits for computer and peripheral manufacturers, modems, routers, network building, equipment for internet expansion itself, servers, switches, routers, cable, etc., and even a few websites became profitable.

The moral is, none of those people had to come up with cross platform data sharing protocols, nobody has to pay liscencing fees to use the protocols that make networking possible - that was done at public expense (much of it paid for by the EU) and available freely to the public, including business's (every chain in the country from Wal-Mart to Burger Doodle co-ordinates it activities over and internet network - Wal-Mart is almost completely automated and run from Bentonville, they even control the environmental systems, heating and air conditioning, lights, etc., and much of capital and finance markets is network intensive, derivatives are basically huge AI programs running over the net, buying, selling and trading automatically, none of which "innovation" would exist without a foundation of basic research done in large part at public universities, because there is no firm in the world that could have funded that research without going bankrupt before it was even off the ground.

About 90% of pharmaceutical research is public research, as another example, done at public expense, 10% is applied research to turn that into drugs, but the meme on the right is that the public has no say in how those drugs are priced, since the pharmaceutical companies paid for development. Again, up to 90% of the development costs are underwritten by the public, pharmaceuticals are given a certain period to recoup their portion of the research and development costs, and make a profit before their license expires and generics can be produced.

Vast amounts of research that altered technological markets in the late 20th century was based on research captured from the Germans after WWII, quite a bit of basic research in materials, particularly plastics and polymers, as well as Rocketry, came directly from research funded by the German government.

Public investment is a hall mark of civilization, in some ways, it even defines it, from the time the first Ziggurat was built to the Waxahachie SSC.





xssve -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 4:02:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The idea that innovation is a private or corporate monopoly is a self serving myth, usually promoted by the very same interests that the myth serves.



yes that is why we have WORLDWIDE WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION, whos "interests" did putting the kabash on that serve?


How about the global warming fraud? whos interests did that serve?

You out of tinfoil again? WHAT WORLDWIDE WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION?




Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 4:03:48 PM)

yes at taxpayer expense and funnelled to their pals in large private corporations. who is getting wealthy at TP expense and then require bailouts! again at TP expense.




Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 4:05:23 PM)

the one from 1905, OVER 100 years ago, you know when they had remote control boats with no on board power floating around in new york harbor? that transmittor


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lvqI24L1VE



Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!





xssve -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 4:54:47 PM)

K.

Anyway, back to the OP, taking over local government is all part of the Gingrich's GOP strategy. It may seem odd that the right wing rank and file who are characterized by their distrust of Federal government (arising mostly from still lingering resentment over reconstruction, see Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy), would welcome corporate tyranny without question - having traveled and lived throughout the South however, it seems to me that corporations are probably the biggest employers": there really isn't a lot of small business in the South, about the only Chains that started in the South are Popeyes and Waffle House (although there are a lot of really good family restaurants), and there isn't a lot of retail, few factories, other than paper mills, etc.

They used to have a lot of textile industries, a lot of Northern Textile firms moved South after the war when Northern industry went more towards Steel and machinery, but most of that was gutted in the Eighties, they were prime targets for corporate raiders, and under heavy competition from India and Indonesia, and there isn't' a lot left down there other than corporations, paper companies like Weyerhaeuser, oil companies, some agribusiness, etc. - particularly in the rural inland regions.

There's more stuff going on in the coastal regions, the bigger cites are as modern as anywhere else, and there are fishing industries, etc., but inland it's still pretty much the 1870's in a lot of ways, without a lot of agriculture, pretty much tree farms, paper mills, and squirrel hunters.

The largest employers in Alabama for example are:

Redstone Arsenal 25,373
University of Alabama at Birmingham (includes UAB Hospital) 18,750
Maxwell Air Force Base 12,280
State of Alabama 9,500
Mobile County Public School System 8,100

All public sector, which may well be resented by those not employed in the public sector, and I'd bet that below that are Oil companies and paper companies - some mining, mostly in the Appalachians, which have been pretty much turned into a parking lot.




TheHeretic -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 5:09:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Maybe Rich has a meth lab.



Mine has mellowed a bit, but that was accurate to what we first picked up as a rescue

Doesn't get the question off the hook, though.

[image]local://upfiles/409734/07981B60F00E4248ACAA1B1D748D9B63.jpg[/image]




Real0ne -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 5:15:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

K.

Anyway, back to the OP, taking over local government is all part of the Gingrich's GOP strategy.



Oh come on now.

I just posted INNOVATION that has been around for over 100 years that was shit canned so the top .1% could make a fortune putting wires up all over the place.

It is bang on topic, and you are doing the same thing they did `100 years ago and scoffing at it.

Why would you ignore what we so desparately need today?


Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lvqI24L1VE

quote:

When Tesla was determining the resonant frequencies of the earth to potentially transmit unlimited electric power, he also recognized frequencies that acted as a damping field to nullify electric power. With the advent of the wireless and Tesla's unique investigations into broadcasting electricity, a dozen or more inventors thereafter announced their own means for transmitting electrical energy without wires. One British inventor, H. Grindell-Matthews, actually demonstrated his "mystery ray" apparatus in 1924 to a Popular Science Monthly writer in London (See: Pop. Sci. Monthly, Aug. 1924, P. 33). When his beam was directed toward the magneto system of a gasoline engine, it stopped the system. Afterwards, it ignited gun powder, lit an electric lamp bulb from a distance and killed a mouse in seconds! Grindell-Matthews said the secret was involved with the "carrier beam" he used to conduct a high-voltage, low-frequency electrical current. During 1936, Guglielmo Marconi experimented with extremely low frequency (ELF) waves and displayed their exceptional ability to penetrate metallic shielding. These waves could affect electrical devices, overload circuits and cause machines like generators, electric motors and automobiles to stall. Diesel engines, which do not rely on electrical ignition, were not affected



so how can anyone say its about innovation?

Clearly the INNOVATION WAS AND STILL IS THERE!

Its about feeding the troughers!

Always has been about feeding TOP TIER TROUGHERS and always will be.

See, we feed them so they have nothing better than to pass laws so we can better feed them!

simple, innovation has nothing to do with that paradigm





Owner59 -> RE: On tyranny. (4/14/2012 10:24:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
I will confess to wondering something about the thinking of many conservatives and I will try to treat some of their claims as serious despite the difficulty. Assuming when they accuse the President of actions bordering on tyrannical and spew invective at the Federal government, they are not merely being racist, but actually believe their rights threatened, why are they generally so oblivious to insults to their liberty from non-Federal sources. There seems no equal opposition to state level government (although those governments are often less competent and much more likely to interfere with your liberties), municipal or county government or the largest danger to liberty, corporate domination. A person's freedom, ability to earn a living, ability to get credit, join a union, to speak his mind, and indeed to live is far more likely to be infringed by local governments or corporations. If you are in prison unjustly is it more oppressive in the federal government put you there as opposed to a state government. What is the logic and magic of localism and corporatism?


See, Patrick, that phrase says that we are being racist, but not just racist, blah blah blah. And, I contend that the President's race has nothing to do with it. For instance, while I am white, when I woke up to Bush's Big Government-ism, and started to read and research, I was horrified at much of what I was reading. I disagreed then, and even more now, with the Patriot Act, among other things. Does that, too, mean that I am anti-white?

[Tongue in Cheek]I'm not racist. I disagree with Obama's white half, too.[/Tongue in Cheek]

According to the US Constitution, there are enumerated powers given to the Federal Government. All the rest of the powers remain with the State, or the people. The closer you get to where you live, the more accountability there tends to be. Thus, a City government tends to be less likely than a County Government to get away with "shenanigans." County tends to be more accountable than State, which tends, in turn, to be more accountable than Federal Government.

Encroachment by the Federal Government, too, is worse as you have other "elected officials" doing things you may not agree with, but over which you have absolutely no power. If you don't live in Ohio, do you not find it frustrating when John Boehner leads Congress down roads you don't want it to go? Or, if Rob Portman writes/sponsors bill after bill that are against your beliefs? If you're not in Ohio, you can't directly make any elective choice to their representations. If you already have Democratic Representatives, you are even more helpless as you can't change the composition of Congress to get D's back in power.

The blessings of Corporatism? 1. Innovation. 2. Innovation. 3. Innovation. 4. Etc.

Do I support Corporatism. Fuck no. While companies buying off politicians to get their way make more money and tend to invest it more into innovative endeavors, we are still getting fucked over on both sides. Pol's take our money and give it to Corporations as incentives to innovate/expand. And yet, we are still paying more and more for the products, as Corporations and their "elected" lackey's continually pad the laws in their favor.

Corporatism is what the lib's are calling "Capitalism" when they rail against Capitalism.


It`s the right`s sudden love of good and honest government that`s making folks believe it`s about something other than the president`s policies or normal established government practices.

Seems there`s a lot of cons now..... who were always against bush for being a world-class fuck-up and no-bid-contracter-big spender......[8|]

Didn`t hear much from them here or in the media durring bush`s disaster years.........

That little fuck up is still laying out of sight.....like George Zimmerman was.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125