extremely right-wing remains extremely right-wing, no matter what face or name is masking it.

What the USA need are more Left-Wing people.

---

Account frozen...

extremely right-wing remains extremely right-wing, no matter what face or name is masking it.

What the USA need are more Left-Wing people.

Really?

Does that mean Germans are always German no matter how many Hitlers WE take down?

---

"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"....think about it.

You can't replace 'natural talent' with 'training'... think about it... ;)

(It's the root of corporate americas problem.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I think Godwin's Law has been breached...

---

Account frozen...

Warning! The internet may actually contain real people with real feelings.

----Mr. Humorless.

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Why do you guys got to run down Brainsmasher's job all the time? I've seen you people denigrate his job and insult him with it for over a year. Why do you do that?

I think if you reread the posts in question, you'll find that no one is running down the job.

It's the attitudes of the individual holding the job that raise questions.
One would think that someone so opposed to social programs and social spending would avoid seeking employment in a government run program.

Unless the goal is to be part of the neo-con drive to destroy government programs.

A common practice of republican agents is to place fellow believers in positions of control within government agencies to further the damage to the programs, it follows that these opponents of government programs would load their departments with likeminded saboteurs.

The real beauty of this plan is that the very same people who drive the programs into oblivion also receive a government pension at the end.

Raspberry sound.

Since when does advocacy of smaller government and advocacy of a system that does not encourage government welfare dependency automatically entail a belief in NO government whatsoever?

What kind of false choice fallacy are you trying to smuggle here? Geez. 12 year olds can see through.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

To reduce government to such a weakened state as to allow it's domination by the corporate community is the stated goal of republicans and corporatists.

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Grover Norquist

Ever hear of the "Leave Us Alone Coalition"?

Norquist started it and it's "Wednesday Meeting" is a regular who's who of the republican party.

President George Bush sends a representative to every meeting, as does Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Also included in the role call of the "Wednesday Meeting" are GOP congressional leaders, members of right wing think tanks and the usual K Street lobbyists.

Removing power from government and handing that same power to corporations is the end game.
A strong central government is unacceptable to these people (and their followers) as it represents the will of the people over the wants of the wealthy.

Of course, recently this has become more theoretical in the minds of republicans because the will of the people means nothing to them.

In answer to your question, small government is the same as no government when it comes to having the strength to reign in corporate power.

To reduce government to such a weakened state as to allow it's domination by the corporate community is the stated goal of republicans and corporatists.

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Grover Norquist

Ever hear of the "Leave Us Alone Coalition"?

Norquist started it and it's "Wednesday Meeting" is a regular who's who of the republican party.

President George Bush sends a representative to every meeting, as does Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Also included in the role call of the "Wednesday Meeting" are GOP congressional leaders, members of right wing think tanks and the usual K Street lobbyists.

Removing power from government and handing that same power to corporations is the end game.
A strong central government is unacceptable to these people (and their followers) as it represents the will of the people over the wants of the wealthy.

Of course, recently this has become more theoretical in the minds of republicans because the will of the people means nothing to them.

In answer to your question, small government is the same as no government when it comes to having the strength to reign in corporate power.

What gives you the right to 'reign in corporate power' ? Corporations are owned by individuals. Period. You want to initiate force on people. Period. I'd like it if you would have the decency to just admit this once and for all and then state, as Rush has asked before, "The government should initiate force against its citizens because....".

A corporation can't violate your rights without the help of the entity that holds a monopoly on the legal use of force, ie government.

Furthermore, why should this eeeeevil 'corporate power' be reigned in in the first place? What exactly do you want to curtail? Earlier you've stated that you would immediately nationalize NATIONALIZE numerous major sectors of the economy. Why do you think the government has the right to steal companies and assets from its citizens?

All I am reading here is a bunch of left wing slogans. A little thought content and more specifics would be just jim dandy.

Ever hear of the "Leave Us Alone Coalition"?

I'm not very familiar with them but after reading your posts about nationalizing the country's economy I fully understand why they'd want to be left alone from agendas like yours.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

To reduce government to such a weakened state as to allow it's domination by the corporate community is the stated goal of republicans and corporatists.

>snip some Barbra Streisand about Grover Norquist expressing his First Amendment rights<

Removing power from government and handing that same power to corporations is the end game.

And once again, your position fails because of the glaring inconsistencies.

You see, not one corporation on earth has power over you. Not one. Why? Because they cannot make you purchase their goods, ever. Since you don't have a right to anything produced by someone else (just like they do not have a right to your labor), these corporations can only make products and services available to you, they cannot force you to buy anything. If you need something, you can pick and choose from the providers to find the best deal for you at the best price for you. They can't force you to choose, and you can choose not to buy.

Oh, wait, there is one exception to the above. That's when the gov't creates a monopoly by force of law. Now there they've got you up against a wall. You have NO choice whatsoever. The gov't has decided for you (usually involving cronyism and the rest) and removed all choice. You cannot find a better price, your cannot find a different service, you cannot choose as you wish. That is an ACTUAL monopoly.

But let's see, in Message 684878 you advocated nationalizing things (once again, you advocate taking the private property of others, because you sez so) and, by extension creating actual, gov't monopolies. You said, "I'd socialize oil, water, electricity, telephone (land lines only), roads, highways and natural gas for starters. I'd socialize the means of provision also. Transmission lines, pipelines, refineries, all publicly owned."

In other words, you want to make some large corporations even larger, take away choice, and, as usual, drive costs up. Furthermore, presently those corporations don't have power over you; however, the second that you nationalize them, the have the ultimate power over you, the power of force of law.

Hmmmm, lets see. A monopoly such as Microsoft is wrong even when it really isn't a monopoly (given the choice of Mac, Linux, BSD, et cetera).

Yet, you think it's a good idea to to create an actual monopolies, enforced by the power of law, taking choice away from the individual and stifling creativity. What a smart plan.

A strong central government is unacceptable to these people (and their followers) as it represents the will of the people over the wants of the wealthy.

No, they abhor strong gov'ts because the dislike the cronyism, War in Iraq, the CIA, the DoD, corporate welfare, the NHS, HMS Invincible, and et cetera. They dislike paying for massive weapons systems or paying for school for children that they don't have.

Of course, recently this has become more theoretical in the minds of republicans because the will of the people means nothing to them.

In answer to your question, small government is the same as no government when it comes to having the strength to reign in corporate power.

Though, of course, these corporations have no power because they cannot force you to buy their mobile phones or computers or anything else. The only thing that can give them that power is gov't force.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, they abhor strong gov'ts because the dislike the cronyism, War in Iraq, the CIA, the DoD, corporate welfare, the NHS, HMS Invincible, and et cetera. They dislike paying for massive weapons systems or paying for school for children that they don't have.

Let me just get you to repeat this.

The corporatists and republicans hate strong government because of...

Cronyism...both entities thrive because of this

War in Iraq...both entities started this

CIA...both make inmmense use of this

DoD...both enrich themselves through this

Corporate welfare...see DoD response

NHS...one entity makes billions by the lack of healthcare and the other is a collection of selfish *#@^#! with no regard for those who cannot afford it.

Massive Weapons Systems...see DoD response

Paying for Schooling...More selfish *#@^#!

Well, I'm convinced. Only a pure Bushtard could pull something like that out of their *ss to prove their point.

Good night Barney.

[quote]
No, they abhor strong gov'ts because the dislike the cronyism, War in Iraq, the CIA, the DoD, corporate welfare, the NHS, HMS Invincible, and et cetera. They dislike paying for massive weapons systems or paying for school for children that they don't have.

Let me just get you to repeat this.

The corporatists and republicans hate strong government because of...

Cronyism...both entities thrive because of this

Against cronyism? Support capitalism. It's only in a mixed or statist economy that the power strugglers are allowed to turn to Washington to meddle in economic affairs.

DoD...both enrich themselves through this

There'd still be a department of defense in your system, or any system for that matter.

Corporate welfare...see DoD response

Only governments can give out corporate welfare. They do this through the use of force which is something you consistently advocate for yet somehow despise. Bizarre.

NHS...one entity makes billions by the lack of healthcare and the other is a collection of selfish *#@^#! with no regard for those who cannot afford it.

Yes, you've just indicted one of those nationalized industries you are so eager for.

Massive Weapons Systems...see DoD response

There'd still be massive weapons systems under your system too you know, or any system for that matter.

Paying for Schooling...More selfish *#@^#!

So the people that don't want to pay for YOUR children's education are selfish (in whatever usage or definition of the word is) but people like you that want others to pay for your education bills are not 'selfish' is that right?

Well, I'm convinced. Only a pure Bushtard could pull something like that out of their *ss to prove their point.

Good night Barney.

Why do you associate Republicans with capitalism? They routinely advocate interventionist policies like the Democrats do just not quite as often but in different ways and in different entities.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

No, they abhor strong gov'ts because the dislike the cronyism, War in Iraq, the CIA, the DoD, corporate welfare, the NHS, HMS Invincible, and et cetera. They dislike paying for massive weapons systems or paying for school for children that they don't have.

Let me just get you to repeat this.

I'm sorry, my mistake. I should have been more clear. I stated the above quote in response to your comment, "A strong central government is unacceptable to these people (and their followers) as it represents the will of the people over the wants of the wealthy."

More specifically, I was referring to small gov't types in general, not whatever you mean by "corporatists and republicans." I didn't reply correctly.

Cronyism...both entities thrive because of this

War in Iraq...both entities started this

CIA...both make inmmense use of this

DoD...both enrich themselves through this

Corporate welfare...see DoD response

NHS...one entity makes billions by the lack of healthcare and the other is a collection of selfish *#@^#! with no regard for those who cannot afford it.

Massive Weapons Systems...see DoD response

Paying for Schooling...More selfish *#@^#!

None of this is relevant to the point as I corrected it. The examples were reasons that small gov't types abhor big gov't. They dislike paying for these things by force.

Well, I'm convinced. Only a pure Bushtard could pull something like that out of their *ss to prove their point.

Good night Barney.

I simply have to ask. Do you think this crap helps your position? I mean, do you actually believe that your vague hand-waving and impotent and erroneous comments about me actually serve to convince your readers of a position that has nothing to do with me?

Furthermore, if you are seeking to convince those that actively disagree with you, not just those at the margin, do you think they are likely to come around to your point of view with this stuff? I mean, calling someone who would shut down 95% of the gov't a "Bushtard" suggests either utter incompetence, or a complete lack of reasoning skills.

I mean, you can't even seem to be able to read, let alone form an argument--you seem to have missed the entire point of the post. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to you?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, they abhor strong gov'ts because the dislike the cronyism, War in Iraq, the CIA, the DoD, corporate welfare, the NHS, HMS Invincible, and et cetera. They dislike paying for massive weapons systems or paying for school for children that they don't have.

Let me just get you to repeat this.

I'm sorry, my mistake. I should have been more clear. I stated the above quote in response to your comment, "A strong central government is unacceptable to these people (and their followers) as it represents the will of the people over the wants of the wealthy."

More specifically, I was referring to small gov't types in general, not whatever you mean by "corporatists and republicans." I didn't reply correctly.

Cronyism...both entities thrive because of this

War in Iraq...both entities started this

CIA...both make inmmense use of this

DoD...both enrich themselves through this

Corporate welfare...see DoD response

NHS...one entity makes billions by the lack of healthcare and the other is a collection of selfish *#@^#! with no regard for those who cannot afford it.

Massive Weapons Systems...see DoD response

Paying for Schooling...More selfish *#@^#!

None of this is relevant to the point as I corrected it. The examples were reasons that small gov't types abhor big gov't. They dislike paying for these things by force.

Well, I'm convinced. Only a pure Bushtard could pull something like that out of their *ss to prove their point.

Good night Barney.

I simply have to ask. Do you think this crap helps your position? I mean, do you actually believe that your vague hand-waving and impotent and erroneous comments about me actually serve to convince your readers of a position that has nothing to do with me?

Furthermore, if you are seeking to convince those that actively disagree with you, not just those at the margin, do you think they are likely to come around to your point of view with this stuff? I mean, calling someone who would shut down 95% of the gov't a "Bushtard" suggests either utter incompetence, or a complete lack of reasoning skills.

I mean, you can't even seem to be able to read, let alone form an argument--you seem to have missed the entire point of the post. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to you?

People who want to give all power to "the market" are Bushtards as well as people who say all power to the corporations - because the effect remains the same: more weatlth for the rich ones, and more poverty for the poor ones

But the topic discussed is far off the topic at the title - so what if discussing such stuff elsewhere and go back to the topic at the title?

---

Account frozen...

People who want to give all power to "the market" are Bushtards as well as people who say all power to the corporations - because the effect remains the same: more weatlth for the rich ones, and more poverty for the poor ones

Jeebus, is that comment stupid.

The market already HAS "all the power," because nothing else produces goods and services--the gov't sure doesn't, and your precious UAW certainly can't even produce car one.

And, as usual, you've just repeated a bromide you find pleasing. Corporations don't have power because they can't force you to do anything, ever. The only entity that can do that is the gov't. Something you keep begging to take over things: therefore, giving it greater power and taking it away from those who can afford it the least.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

People who want to give all power to "the market" are Bushtards as well as people who say all power to the corporations - because the effect remains the same: more weatlth for the rich ones, and more poverty for the poor ones

But the topic discussed is far off the topic at the title - so what if discussing such stuff elsewhere and go back to the topic at the title?

So if 'giving' (don't know where you obtained the right to 'give' anything) all power to the government and all power to the corporations (read--private individuals) both lead to more poverty for the poor people and more wealth for the wealthy am I to believe that a mixture of free markets and socialism will somehow magically fix this perceived problem of yours?

If 100% government intervention makes the poor poorer how will 50% intervention make them richer?

Besides, capitalism doesn't make the poor poorer. It does the opposite. In fact, the more socialized or fascistic an economy is the worse off the poor are. You could redistribute every last cent of the wealthy's money to the poor and they'd be just as poor, if not poorer very soon. They'd be without jobs too of course, without any hope of a future job, except perhaps fighting street rodents over sewer crumbs fallen from the back of U.N. aid relief trucks.

As for the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get wealthier: what's the problem? Why are you consumed with envy over what the eeeevil rich guy down the street has? You don't possess the skills to have ever produced what he's produced in the first place.

Try imagining that he lives on another planet and forget about stealing his stuff. Better yet, try imagining that he doesn't exist at all. I'm sure he'd appreciate you not thinking about him anymore so he can get back to supporting the riff raff that live off of his productive genius instead of thinking about the parasites whose existence you seem to be so concerned with.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

People who want to give all power to "the market" are Bushtards as well as people who say all power to the corporations - because the effect remains the same: more weatlth for the rich ones, and more poverty for the poor ones

Jeebus, is that comment stupid.

The market already HAS "all the power," because nothing else produces goods and services--the gov't sure doesn't, and your precious UAW certainly can't even produce car one.

And, as usual, you've just repeated a bromide you find pleasing. Corporations don't have power because they can't force you to do anything, ever. The only entity that can do that is the gov't. Something you keep begging to take over things: therefore, giving it greater power and taking it away from those who can afford it the least.

you are right: the market has power - because the gov't gave it to them.
It's (unfortunately) not the government but the corporations who dictate prices. It's not the gov't but the corporations who dictate where to close down or open up plants. It's the corporations and not the gov't who dictate who/what shall be supported or not, where shall be a financial cut and where not. It's even the corporations and not the government who dictate whether or not a specific weapon system is built or whether or not a certain science program is supported.
The government has allowed to be the puppet on the strings of the corporation - it's time for it to become independent, to show the corporations who really should rule: people who are chosen and supported by The People (and not by the corporations). Let the government be the master over the market, as it should be - then chances are good that all life gets better.

---

Account frozen...

you are right: the market has power - because the gov't gave it to them.

You're wrong again because the market exists, and always does exist, whether there is a gov't or not. In fact, markets have existed long before gov'ts ever did.

It's (unfortunately) not the government but the corporations who dictate prices. It's not the gov't but the corporations who dictate where to close down or open up plants. It's the corporations and not the gov't who dictate who/what shall be supported or not, where shall be a financial cut and where not.

Of course. This is all true because it is private property. People do what they wish with their private property, just as you do with yours. That includes choosing the price they are willing to sell their property for, where is best for that property to be produced, and what is the best way to deal the assets involved. Duh.

It's even the corporations and not the government who dictate whether or not a specific weapon system is built or whether or not a certain science program is supported.

Maybe, but you seem to love this. Instead of people choosing which science to support or not, you'd rather have the gov't take their money from them by force and decide without any regard to what the individual would have chosen. Instead of people choosing to put their disposable income into SETI, they're forced to support the science behind the Missile Defense Agency (Reagan's star wars program) and the science behind new generation nuclear weapons. Are you thrilled?

The government has allowed to be the puppet on the strings of the corporation - it's time for it to become independent, to show the corporations who really should rule: people who are chosen and supported by The People (and not by the corporations). Let the government be the master over the market, as it should be - then chances are good that all life gets better.

This is another really stupid comment. You mean like the Soviet Union? Or the DPRK? Oh yeah, that worked wonders for those people. No choice, brutal costs, no products. The gov't was the "master over the market" and the corporations refused to produce.

Once again, this is why you need to build that wall. That's the only thing that kept anyone in the Soviet Union and East Germany, and it's the only thing that keeps people in the DPRK and Cuba.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

you are right: the market has power - because the gov't gave it to them.

Wrong. You can't give to someone the rights of free choice and the right to be free from violence and force that you consistently advocate. We own those rights by virtue of our nature and our humanity.

It's (unfortunately) not the government but the corporations who dictate prices.

Wrong again. I suspect you've never studied a non marxist economic text in your life growing up in E.Germany. A seller can choose the price or the quantity of product sold in a given market but not both....ever. The purchaser is always a factor in the equation. But you are disregarding the humble 'common man' that you claim to revere.

It's not the gov't but the corporations who dictate where to close down or open up plants. It's the corporations and not the gov't who dictate who/what shall be supported or not, where shall be a financial cut and where not.

Wrong again! (you're on a roll!) The choices that corporations make in regard to where to open a factory are just as susceptible to forces beyond their control by the market. Which town has available workers at affordable prices? Where are taxes lower? Where can we more cheaply get a source of water or electricity? What will be our situation in regard to shipping?

Besides, let's imagine we just nationalized everything....EVERYTHING. Tell me how these omnipotent government bureaucrats you want to rule over us WITH THE FORCE OF LAW go about choosing where to locate a factory. They'd do a wonderful job running them I'm sure. Just like they did when they ran your E. Germany into an economic graveyard.

It's even the corporations and not the government who dictate whether or not a specific weapon system is built or whether or not a certain science program is supported.

Strange comment.

The government has allowed to be the puppet on the strings of the corporation - it's time for it to become independent, to show the corporations who really should rule: people who are chosen and supported by The People (and not by the corporations). Let the government be the master over the market, as it should be - then chances are good that all life gets better.

Stop the hilarity! LMAO. You want government to take over the economic sphere of our lives, eliminating people's independence and ability to freely make independent choices all in the name of .....(get ready for it.) INDEPENDENCE for GOVERNMENT! LOL.

How is it that the chances are good that all life gets better? What reality has your mind become divorced from?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

:-P

I got a bit of entertainment reading the responsive post that Rush and I made to these same questions that we were typing at the same time. Interesting.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I meant that the government should be independent from the corporations - or, better yet: the other way around: corporations should be dependent of the government, with the government (as it is, no matter which party) holding per definition at least 35% of all stocks.

---

Account frozen...