Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: How irresponsible is this.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How irresponsible is this. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:17:21 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

well regulated free market

if it is "well regulated", then it ain't free, now is it. This is one of the problems with political discourse with amateurs, they don't actually understand the terms they misuse.



Good lord, if you don't understand that any completely unregulated market inevitably leads to to oligarchy, at least, if not then proceeding to monopoly, either of which restricts freedom of any sort for buyers/'consumers,' not to mention workers ....

It might be the case that some department at the Uni should re-assess their terminology.





< Message edited by Edwird -- 9/14/2016 4:25:47 PM >

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:22:49 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		I said nothing of the sort one way or another, I simply pointed out the internal contradiction of a "well regulated free market"

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:28:06 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
I can buy that.

You have a point, as regards matter of logic.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:44:11 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		How about regulating the banks ?

T^T

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:46:59 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		We did up here and thus avoided the worst effects of the big melt down

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:50:40 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

The Taliban regime was attacked because it wouldn't give up bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Not quite true. They offered to give him up several times
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/20/newly-disclosed-documents-shed-more-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482


The US had been saying hand him over for 3 years prior to 9/11. The Taliban had been saying, we'll hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (it doesn't matter what their conditions were for this conversation). The US said, no, give him to us. The Taliban said, we'll hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (the conditions still don't matter). The US warns the Taliban that they would be held responsible if any terrorists they are harboring commit acts of terrorism against the US (the Taliban had been warning the US that al Qaeda was likely to strike at the US). After the attacks, the Taliban said they'd hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (still don't matter).

None of that constitutes the Taliban giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:51:34 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

But I still think that political science degrees should have as requirement two semesters of economics as core studies.

I mean, poli sci majors proclaiming or insisting that the the rest of the world be held to their own standards of 'logic' is quite the larfe, to be honest.




< Message edited by Edwird -- 9/14/2016 4:58:30 PM >

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 4:56:38 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms.

Bullshit. Ho Chi Minh offered to make Vietnam a US protectorate to get the French out but the US declined and backed the French, which drove him into turning to the Soviets for help in liberating his country.
Hell Ho approched Wilson in 1919 to try get his country's freedom from colonialism but was shut down.


You missed my point. Let me quote what I said and see if I can explain what I meant:
    quote:

    We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms. Probably was neither right nor worth it, but that's why we went in. It definitely wasn't in response to an imminent threat to the US, nor an attack on the US.


I should have put quotes around the first sentence, as that was the given reasoning for why the US went into 'Nam. My next sentence, that going to war to "halt the scourge of Communism," probably wasn't right (as in correct). That is, we didn't need to do that to protect our freedoms. And, the last sentence is where I show that there were no real, solid reasons for us going to war in 'Nam.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:04:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Not quite. Actually the US did invade Afghanistan to wipe out Al Qeuada and its supporters to 'win the war against terrorism.' And.....
.....it was illegal under all international law and under treaty we signed with the UN.
The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.
This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.
Then after we attacked... Bush eventually calls on the Taliban regime to "deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaeda who hide in your land," or share in their fate. Thus changing the rational for the war as then the Taliban could 'suffer their fate.'
HERE


The country of Afghanistan wasn't the target of our attacks. We weren't really "at war" with Afghanistan. We were at war with the Taliban, and al Qaeda. There is quite a difference.

quote:

Oh and the gov. was very typically irresponsible as hell. It is incitment to violence, even riot IF HRC is elected. Verging on traitorous.


Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:08:27 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort.

That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:15:45 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort.

That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever


Considering it wasn't an incitement to violence, it's not a lame excuse at all.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:22:25 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

well regulated free market

if it is "well regulated", then it ain't free, now is it. This is one of the problems with political discourse with amateurs, they don't actually understand the terms they misuse.

A market most certainly can be well regulated and still be a free market. If in fact you do your research, you will find quite a number of regulations on business in general and the corporation specifically, from the early 19th century for example, that still left a very free market and for all participants who chose to risk their capital and their labor. So I have not misused any terms.

As for being amateur, by a strict definition, I am no longer being paid for my consul on such matters but hazard a guess that I know one hell of a lot more than you think I do and just maybe...than you do as exemplified for example, you saying that for a market to be regulated, by definition means...its no longer free. Such a statement is inaccurate prima facie.

We can agree it would seem on this much, free market/capitalism is the oxymoron of our times.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:23:56 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		LOL
Yes dear, whatever you say.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:30:56 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Nope.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:47:39 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

profiteering corporatism and an outright abandonment of the manufacturing economy in the US

quote:

a for profit culture allowed to flourish under both right and left but protected or even enriched by protecting the minority (business political power) in the halls of govt.

quote:

top heavy society

All natural and all-but-inevitable outcomes of a capitalist system




How about you investigate the capitalist systems in Germany or Norway or Denmark or Sweden et al. if you want to make pretense of having a clue?

OTOH, you are welcome to allude to any communist-run country that has done better than them.

I must be missing your point if you have one. I am sure there may be some of what is described as market barriers (created by govt. too) in those countries but almost all of our discourse from certain parties everywhere, has informed that [they] are rather socialist in nature and all too often, only because those economies are charged with serving society at large. And while one could as easily argue they are not true socialist countries meaning that those govts. do not own the means of production and they would be correct, those examples of European capitalism operate more of a mixed economy that has performed as well and in many aspects, better than the American economy.

If one was to investigate those countries, one would find a much greater participation rate of labor (the people/society) in management, training, taxing, capital allocation together with hiring and firing policies and practices.

In fact, they have shown a willingness and even created legal conditions that to extent they are in fact capitalist economies, they are performing quite well in serving almost all of society as opposed to say, American capitalism that need not at all, operating under a regime and essentially a business culture that has a fiduciary responsibility...to merely use or forget society entirely.

Communism is not a part of this discussion.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 9/14/2016 6:06:51 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 5:58:22 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Sorry, missed your comment.
quote:

How about you investigate the capitalist systems in Germany or Norway or Denmark or Sweden et al. if you want to make pretense of having a clue?

Those are not actually capitalist economies, they are what is known as mixed economies.
quote:

OTOH, you are welcome to allude to any communist-run country that has done better than them.

OK sure, just tell me the name of any communist run country and I will tell you

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 6:08:14 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

LOL
Yes dear, whatever you say.

OK

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 6:09:15 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Nope.

Do you mean that you do not agree that free market/capitalism is an oxymoron ?

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 6:19:09 PM   
KrystallineKitty


Posts: 8
Joined: 5/22/2016
Status: offline 		The pure fact is that the end result of unregulated capitalism, will be slavery... Full stop!

Why pay for what you can just take by force... And when you have a collective monopoly, who says you cant charge 110% of what they can afford, and just have them mortgage themselves into slavery...

Free market, only exists while there is freedom on both sides of the supply and demand...

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: How irresponsible is this. - 9/14/2016 6:32:03 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort.

That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever


Yeah last resort. The US says "you will have the leaders we choose and do what we say and sell us your natural resources for pennies on the dollar or we will attack you"

And most countries will say "Fuck you".

And then they get attacked.

If you want to call that a "last resort" then go ahead, but it made enemies out of at least 50 % of the world so far and they're still working on it. And Hillary Clinton intends to step up the process.

T^T

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How irresponsible is this. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094