So where are the anti-regulation/anti union now that another mine has exploded?

Lamarr

Star
Registered
I think we only disagree in a matter of degrees, if I'm reading you wrong, let me know.

I don't believe government is the answer to all things but, as you said, they do have a place. In the case of the mines, their place is to do a better job of regulation and enforcement instead of the half ass one they did in 2006. Fast food places don't get to enjoy the privileges mines do. They get too many violations, they're shut down. They get one really low health score, they're shut down.
It's obvious Massey wasn't going to look out for the safety of it's employees and someone has to. People just deciding to not work there isn't a viable answer.

right, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, if you overregulate, it leads to expanding court dockets & gridlock but by decreasing safety standards, it puts the workers at a greater risk. The real answer is for people to start giving a damn about one another, outside of that, the debate will continue.

I'm starting to think there should be some type of test for someone to come to this board from the main one.

Please don't open this can of worms :D
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
right, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, if you overregulate, it leads to expanding court dockets & gridlock but by decreasing safety standards, it puts the workers at a greater risk. The real answer is for people to start giving a damn about one another, outside of that, the debate will continue.



Please don't open this can of worms :D

:lol::lol:

There's got to be something. We don't have to, and won't, agree a lot of the times but at least be able to make a cogent point and be able to defend it. If I wanted to play with the BGOL DumbAss Squad, I'd stick to the Main Board (no offense, unless you're one of the members of DAS).
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Thanks. He reached over and pulled that one from a discussion unrelated to his and completely out of context AND STILL, LOL, failed to make a valid point.

QueEx

Oh... so you do know traffic signs would not magically disappear under anarchy.

Will wonders never cease.

:lol: Your lil toy engine has run out of steam. Damn. I was hoping you could bring a REAL argument.


QueEx
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
What "elephant"? No one was even thinking that nonsense but you.

Bow out gracefully, man.:smh:





...the more I like flies.

So, I guess you speak for everybody.

How can you discuss anything having to do with modern government and not mention the basis on which it exists? Then again, you are the one promoting government as the "womb".

:lol: Your lil toy engine has run out of steam. Damn. I was hoping you could bring a REAL argument.


QueEx

You can't seem to handle real arguments.

In your little vision of the world, government is the only answer to every problem and everyone is supposed to accept that... just because you say so.

Well, believe it or not, no one has the right to FORCE anyone to do anything they don't want.

When you understand that, maybe you'll be ready to understand what anarchy is all about.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
You can't seem to handle real arguments.

Is that it ??? Is that the best you can do ??? :smh:


In your little vision of the world, government is the only answer to every problem and everyone is supposed to accept that... just because you say so.


You know damn well I never said government is the only answer to anything. In fact, I've said to you more than once, government, alone, may not be the answer to anything.

Hold up. Let me say it again:

  • Government IS NOT THE ANSWER to every problem; and

  • Government alone may not be the answer to ANY PROBLEM.


QueEx
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Yeah, how dare I mention the elephant in the room.

Pink Elephant!

pink_elephant_cartoon2.png
 
Last edited:

Lamarr

Star
Registered
OK, since you WON"T answer my question, I will try and focus my answer because since you have been posting, I can't see what you beef is. First you say government intervention in business is evil, then you say Glass Steagall should be put back in place or is it that it should never have been removed or that it should have been enforced or not enforced too stringently? Now you say the government should have enforced the rules that you say the government should not have burdened business with in the first place?

Let me word the original question a different way, are you against the individuals that we elect or are you against the rules or are you anarchist and don't want government at all. What do you have against the 'government"? Because if your house was burning down and the fire fighters said your private account wasn't paid up and they couldn't put the fire out, then you be the first one to say, government is damn good!

1) no, I'm not an anarchist, interesting argument though
2) the less govt intervention, the healthier the economy
3) What good is a govt agency if they don't enforce thier own rules?
4) As we see with this thread, govt initiatives are littered with unintended consequences.
5) We all know Clinton was wrong by repealing Glass/Steagall. Remember when Phil Graham made the comment "the banks will regulate themselves". I wanted to see him eat his words but others (including You) felt he & others should be bailed out!
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
1) no, I'm not an anarchist, interesting argument though
2) the less govt intervention, the healthier the economy
3) What good is a govt agency if they don't enforce thier own rules?
4) As we see with this thread, govt initiatives are littered with unintended consequences.
5) We all know Clinton was wrong by repealing Glass/Steagall. Remember when Phil Graham made the comment "the banks will regulate themselves". I wanted to see him eat his words but others (including You) felt he & others should be bailed out!

I know you're talking to thought1 but I wanted to chime in on this point:

While I wasn't a fan of the Bush Bailouts or the Obama follow ups, I do understand the necessity of them. I just hate the way they were done. Bush and Paulson got the Congress to just write a check with no strings attached and no talk of breaking up those same institutions that became, literally, too big to fail. I preferred the way Obama took over GM: people got fired, the company was saved under the order to reorganize.
By the way, Treasury has made a profit so far on the financial bailouts, so it's hasn't been all bad.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
1) no, I'm not an anarchist, interesting argument though
2) the less govt intervention, the healthier the economy
3) What good is a govt agency if they don't enforce thier own rules?
4) As we see with this thread, govt initiatives are littered with unintended consequences.
5) We all know Clinton was wrong by repealing Glass/Steagall. Remember when Phil Graham made the comment "the banks will regulate themselves". I wanted to see him eat his words but others (including You) felt he & others should be bailed out!

So, since in a round-about way you have admitted that you favor government regulation, but are unhappy with the lack of enforcement, why are you a libertarian? Vote people in who will enforce laws and not kiss the capitalist's ass, like Ralph Nader.

That's the first time anyone accused me of being aligned with Phil (cracker) Graham on any issue. I would think you would be more in his camp. Didn't he say that people were just whiners and the economy was just fine.

And I defy you to find any post where I advocated any bail out for any corporate interest. I want them to fail to prove my point that unregulated capitalism is unsustainable and will parasitically consume itself under its own greed, which is barring itself out.

BTW, Clinton did admit he was wrong. Has any republican or libertarian admitted that they were wrong about anything (like Iraq or supply side economics) or do the know everything?
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
So, since in a round-about way you have admitted that you favor government regulation, but are unhappy with the lack of enforcement, why are you a libertarian? Vote people in who will enforce laws and not kiss the capitalist's ass, like Ralph Nader.

I don't think that is a giant, earth-shattering admission but is it too much to ask for a responsible govt? Like I said earlier, regardless of the industry, Govt creates these new laws to cover up from the previous failed law. They claim to fix one problem while creating 2 more, and the process grows exponentially

I guess you could say I'm more unhappy with the selective enforcement we see. Why is it large corps get preferential treatment from govt & smaller companies are forced to go bankrupt and have their assets liquidated? And both parties are complicit in these activities!

Bruh, Nader & Cynthia McKinney held my attention better than the 2 main candidates.

So it looks like we end up with our usual stalemate. You, my friend, still won't admit that we don't enjoy capitalism. We are experiencing corporatism /cronyism /fascism. Once again, capitalism is dependent on the failure of businesses so that better, more efficient business models can emerge.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
I preferred the way Obama took over GM: people got fired, the company was saved under the order to reorganize.
By the way, Treasury has made a profit so far on the financial bailouts, so it's hasn't been all bad.

Is that really the "role of govt"?

For arguments sake, What if there was an individual(s) who had the no-how & capital to run the operation more effectively? They have just been denied the oppurtunity to participate in the "American Dream". Instead, the govt, through car czars and other bureaucrats are just propping up failed business models.

Instead of failure trying to be avoided, it should be embraced. It cleanses the system of past malinvestment. Just my take
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Is that really the "role of govt"?

For arguments sake, What if there was an individual(s) who had the no-how & capital to run the operation more effectively? They have just been denied the oppurtunity to participate in the "American Dream". Instead, the govt, through car czars and other bureaucrats are just propping up failed business models.

Instead of failure trying to be avoided, it should be embraced. It cleanses the system of past malinvestment. Just my take

He's not from Detroit so he doesn't know how f***ed up these car companies are. They needed to fail and Obama, with his government meddling, just made a bad situation worse.

Now, you have two zombie car companies (GM and Chrysler) with a hive of zombie banks.

Yet, people still believe government solves problems. All it does is put them off for a future catastrohpe, at which point the government will come to the rescue and create an even greater catastrohphe, and on and on until the disaster is so great, the government collapses.

At that point, instead of blaming the government, which put us on this road, the victims will be blamed.

You've got to love humans ability to live in denial.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Is that really the "role of govt"?

For arguments sake, What if there was an individual(s) who had the no-how & capital to run the operation more effectively? They have just been denied the oppurtunity to participate in the "American Dream". Instead, the govt, through car czars and other bureaucrats are just propping up failed business models.

Instead of failure trying to be avoided, it should be embraced. It cleanses the system of past malinvestment. Just my take


In theory, that's a good idea but in practice, the ramifications on real people would be catastrophic. If that individual is out there, he can still run the operation. The United States government doesn't want to be in the car business. But a collapse the size of GM would have been horrific coming in the middle of an huge economic recession and the collapse of the financial sector.
The structured, orderly bankruptcy of GM was the best idea in a bad situation.

Yes, protection of the citizenry is the primary goal of government.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
In theory, that's a good idea but in practice, the ramifications on real people would be catastrophic. If that individual is out there, he can still run the operation. The United States government doesn't want to be in the car business. But a collapse the size of GM would have been horrific coming in the middle of an huge economic recession and the collapse of the financial sector.
The structured, orderly bankruptcy of GM was the best idea in a bad situation.

Yes, protection of the citizenry is the primary goal of government.

The people who live where these car companies are located, know how they operate, have worked for them, and seen their impact on the community are telling you WHAT OBAMA DID WAS STUPID AS HELL!!!!

Yet, in your infinite wisdom, you want to ignore the informed, insightful, and experienced opinion and DICTATE what's good for us to advance your pro-government agenda.

OBAMA WAS A DUMBASS for bailing out GM and Chrysler! That is coming from someone who should know.

That is my problem with you pro-government types. You want to tell everyone what's good for them, whether they like it or not! Our rights be DAMNED as long as Obama and the Federal government give the orders.

The primary role of government is to grow.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
The people who live where these car companies are located, know how they operate, have worked for them, and seen their impact on the community are telling you WHAT OBAMA DID WAS STUPID AS HELL!!!!

Yet, in your infinite wisdom, you want to ignore the informed, insightful, and experienced opinion and DICTATE what's good for us to advance your pro-government agenda.

OBAMA WAS A DUMBASS for bailing out GM and Chrysler! That is coming from someone who should know.

That is my problem with you pro-government types. You want to tell everyone what's good for them, whether they like it or not! Our rights be DAMNED as long as Obama and the Federal government give the orders.

The primary role of government is to grow.

Who is that, Cruise? The people who didn't get laid off and have jobs they woudn't have if GM was allowed to crash and burn? Or the vendors in whole other cities that do business with GM? So the majority of people in Michigan thought the best thing to do was not guide GM into bankruptcy but to let it dissolve recklessly?

How did Obama trample on your rights with how he handled GM? Explain.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Who is that, Cruise? The people who didn't get laid off and have jobs they woudn't have if GM was allowed to crash and burn? Or the vendors in whole other cities that do business with GM? So the majority of people in Michigan thought the best thing to do was not guide GM into bankruptcy but to let it dissolve recklessly?

How did Obama trample on your rights with how he handled GM? Explain.

I'm trying to figure out what makes you some kind of expert on Michigan, Detroit, its economy, and its people.

You make this grand pronouncement that the government did the right thing and Obama needed to save GM and Chrysler. What makes you such an authority?

Let me explain something to you. These auto companies have been one big headache for years. They dominate local politics, the community, business, credit, and to some extent, the social scene.

Yet, how have they helped? What have they prevented?

Are the schools better? Are the roads better? Is transportation more affordable? Are jobs available? Is the local economy improving?

These auto companies have had chance after chance to do right. Yet, they blow it every time.

Somehow, despite what local residents know, despite all the history, despite the results, you think Obama can just jump into the situation, ignore reality, and prop up the very same incompetent corporate culture that caused this mess.

Obama didn't consult the people of Detroit on this auto bailout. He did a Bush. He acted unilaterally. He did it and didn't give a DAMN how anyone in the community felt or how they would be affected.

You just don't understand how much resentment there is toward GM and Chrysler. Why? Because you get your information from government stooges and Obama-lovers.

Now, if he acted this stupidly with the auto companies, I know it was no different with the banks.

In fact, the only reason he propped up those abominations called car companies was to save the banks, the institutional investors, this whole ridiculous financial system. Save me the BS about he cares about the people. If he really cared, that asshole Obama would have at least thought enough to visit the city, at least once.

That is your government. That is your Obama. People who don't care about your rights, your opinions, nor your interests. It's all about protecting the rich whiteys and the status quo.

Maybe you can see why I despise Obama, the Federal government, the banks, the corporations, and their propaganda tools, like the media and so-called public education.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Who is that, Cruise? The people who didn't get laid off and have jobs they woudn't have if GM was allowed to crash and burn? Or the vendors in whole other cities that do business with GM? So the majority of people in Michigan thought the best thing to do was not guide GM into bankruptcy but to let it dissolve recklessly?

How did Obama trample on your rights with how he handled GM? Explain.

I'm trying to figure out what makes you some kind of expert on Michigan, Detroit, its economy, and its people.

You make this grand pronouncement that the government did the right thing and Obama needed to save GM and Chrysler. What makes you such an authority?

Let me explain something to you. These auto companies have been one big headache for years. They dominate local politics, the community, business, credit, and to some extent, the social scene.

Yet, how have they helped? What have they prevented?

Are the schools better? Are the roads better? Is transportation more affordable? Are jobs available? Is the local economy improving?

These auto companies have had chance after chance to do right. Yet, they blow it every time.

Somehow, despite what local residents know, despite all the history, despite the results, you think Obama can just jump into the situation, ignore reality, and prop up the very same incompetent corporate culture that caused this mess.

Obama didn't consult the people of Detroit on this auto bailout. He did a Bush. He acted unilaterally. He did it and didn't give a DAMN how anyone in the community felt or how they would be affected.

You just don't understand how much resentment there is toward GM and Chrysler. Why? Because you get your information from government stooges and Obama-lovers.

Now, if he acted this stupidly with the auto companies, I know it was no different with the banks.

In fact, the only reason he propped up those abominations called car companies was to save the banks, the institutional investors, this whole ridiculous financial system. Save me the BS about he cares about the people. If he really cared, that asshole Obama would have at least thought enough to visit the city, at least once.

That is your government. That is your Obama. People who don't care about your rights, your opinions, nor your interests. It's all about protecting the rich whiteys and the status quo.

Maybe you can see why I despise Obama, the Federal government, the banks, the corporations, and their propaganda tools, like the media and so-called public education.


Again, I ask you a direct question that leaves little room for diatribes and you answer with...a diatribe.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Again, I ask you a direct question that leaves little room for diatribes and you answer with...a diatribe.

Instead of acting like you are so smart, why don't you use the information being provided to understand how the world works.

I gave you all that insight into how GM and Chrysler affect the country. Yet, all you want to do is ignore it so you can continue believing in your fantasy of "government as good" and Obama as hero.

When you are ready to listen to people who are actually affected by Obama's actions, maybe then you'll finally understand how much damage he and the Federal government are causing with all these "bailouts" and market interference.

Otherwise, your arguments seem silly and uninformed.

Don't talk about stuff you know nothng about, because I will call you on it and expose you.
 

TheDynasty

Certified Genius
BGOL Investor
I know you're talking to thought1 but I wanted to chime in on this point:

While I wasn't a fan of the Bush Bailouts or the Obama follow ups, I do understand the necessity of them. I just hate the way they were done. Bush and Paulson got the Congress to just write a check with no strings attached and no talk of breaking up those same institutions that became, literally, too big to fail. I preferred the way Obama took over GM: people got fired, the company was saved under the order to reorganize.
By the way, Treasury has made a profit so far on the financial bailouts, so it's hasn't been all bad.

What's the chance that money is going to help you or anyone else directly? You forget we have debt to service.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
In theory, that's a good idea but in practice, the ramifications on real people would be catastrophic. If that individual is out there, he can still run the operation. The United States government doesn't want to be in the car business. But a collapse the size of GM would have been horrific coming in the middle of an huge economic recession and the collapse of the financial sector.
The structured, orderly bankruptcy of GM was the best idea in a bad situation.

Yes, protection of the citizenry is the primary goal of government.

Why is it that when I pose non-govt solutions to the board, it's good in theory but not practical in application or somehow deemed irresponsible? just bein real

True, he/she could still run an operation but he's obviously competing with govt resources that are propping up his competition. No competent businessperson will enter into this situation.

So I gotta question you, are they really protecting the citizenry or the failed multi-national corps?
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Instead of acting like you are so smart, why don't you use the information being provided to understand how the world works.

I gave you all that insight into how GM and Chrysler affect the country. Yet, all you want to do is ignore it so you can continue believing in your fantasy of "government as good" and Obama as hero.
When you are ready to listen to people who are actually affected by Obama's actions, maybe then you'll finally understand how much damage he and the Federal government are causing with all these "bailouts" and market interference.

Otherwise, your arguments seem silly and uninformed.

Don't talk about stuff you know nothng about, because I will call you on it and expose you.

You didn't give me anything except more of your claptrap. I ask pertinent, direct questions and you go around them because they're over your head and you don't understand them. That's been proven again and again.
Everyone is affected by Obama's actions. He's the President of the United States. You don't even have to be America to be affected by his decisions and actions.
Spend less time trying to "expose" me and more exposing any information that you feel can back up your point. Information, not your opinion or your remarkably juvenile theories.

Why is it that when I pose non-govt solutions to the board, it's good in theory but not practical in application or somehow deemed irresponsible? just bein real

True, he/she could still run an operation but he's obviously competing with govt resources that are propping up his competition. No competent businessperson will enter into this situation.

So I gotta question you, are they really protecting the citizenry or the failed multi-national corps?

To answer your first question, because a lot of your solutions would require such incredibly undesirable things for incredibly long stretches of time, namely unemployment on a massive scale.
While politically unpopular to some, to allow GM to crash the way it was heading would have been dangerously reckless. As I said, there was already a financial meltdown and a deepening recession at the time. GM is a major company and it would have been devastating to allow it to just dissolve.
I prefer the market to handle itself but strong government oversight is necessary in an overly competitive society. "The market policing itself" is a proven failure in nearly every industry.

At the end of the day, GM is going back into the private sector and hopefully it'll be better run.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
And I think Libertarianism is good in theory and can work in small municipalities to a certain extent but wouldn't work on a major scale.
 

RBGrider

Star
Registered
Conservative idiots and delusional libertarians

Conservatives Want to Go Back to the Golden Age of the 1880s

It took the Republican Party sixty years of dedicated effort to make the word “liberal” radioactive in some parts of the United States. In less than half that time they’ve also done a pretty good job of making “Republican” just as disliked, associated as it is with the politics of wretched excess, fetishizing ignorance, bowing to K street lobbyists, and diaper-wearing-toe-tapping-lesbian-bondage sexual hypocrisy.

So lately conservatives, and especially the most hard right wing of conservatives, have been on the lookout for other terms they can use rather than the dreaded “R” word when describing themselves. Some of them have jumped on board the Glenn Beck self-promotion tour. Considering that it’s an artificial movement generated around a cheap media persona, declaring yourself a supporter of the Tea Party is a bit like being a proud member of a Monkees Fan Club (and you don’t even get to hear “Last Train to Clarksville”), but hey, it plays better than being a part of the George W. Bush legacy.

Other conservatives have jumped in a different direction and declared that they’re really “small government Libertarians.” Only they don’t seem to understand what Libertarian actually means. Take for example this article in which Jacob Hornberger anoints 1880 as the peak of America’s Libertarian golden age.

Let’s consider, say, the year 1880. Here was a society in which people were free to keep everything they earned, because there was no income tax. They were also free to decide what to do with their own money—spend it, save it, invest it, donate it, or whatever. People were generally free to engage in occupations and professions without a license or permit. There were few federal economic regulations and regulatory agencies. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, bailouts, or so-called stimulus plans. No IRS. No Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. No EPA and OSHA. No Federal Reserve. No drug laws. Few systems of public schooling. No immigration controls. No federal minimum-wage laws or price controls. A monetary system based on gold and silver coins rather than paper money. No slavery. No CIA. No FBI. No torture or cruel or unusual punishments. No renditions. No overseas military empire. No military-industrial complex.

As a libertarian, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a society that is pretty darned golden.

Ah, the 1880s. I can hear people getting wistful from here.

A golden age in which people kept all that they earned. Of course, what they earned in the absence of those debilitating minimum wage laws could be nothing more than worthless tokens from the company store. What they earned from twelve hours of work seven days a week could be actually be a bigger debt to the company that sent you into a mine or factory and made you pay for the wear on your tools, the water you drank, the fuel for your lamp, even the blasting powder you used.

Still, a lifetime of debt wasn’t so bad in a golden age without OSHA and its safety laws, since lifetimes could be quite brief. Mining accidents didn’t kill a piddling 29 men, they killed thousands every year. Over 3 miners out of every 1,000 died on the job each year (twice the rate of Great Britain with it’s freedom-robbing concern for safety). But miners were pikers compared to folks on the railroad. Trainmen fell at a rate that made each year of work roughly equal to the risk of being among the troops on D-Day. Now that’s freedom you can feel (well, briefly). It was an age where any construction project worth its salt could measure progress by body count and factory workers were privileged to know that they really were valued far less than the machines they tended. And death wasn’t all that this golden age had to offer! It was an age when American workers could look forward to the liberation of being disabled for life, and know that they wouldn’t be burdened by the crushing burden of worker’s compensation or government aid.

Any laborer making it to to retirement would find… well, whatever they had laid aside for themselves, assuming they were paid in actual money and that they were cagey enough to hide it somewhere their employer couldn’t “borrow” it. Meaning that a large percentage got to experience the invigorating freedom of starting a second career as a beggar after decades of crippling repetitive work, breathing toxic fumes, and exposure to corrosive chemicals made them unable to continue to hum hi-ho at their old tasks. Well over half of America’s senior citizens basked in the autumnal liberty of living in poverty.

It was a golden age without labor laws in which only 5% of people faced the awful restriction of an 8 hour work day while 3 times that many were blessed with a workday that was 12 hours or longer. Many industries, breweries for example, had a standard workday of 15 hours. And with all the extra freedom of that age, many children were able to experience the blessings of back-breaking labor starting every day by the time they reached the age of 10, with more than a third generating freedom dollars before they turned 15.

Of course, that wasn’t hard since this was a golden age of few public schools. Except it wasn’t. Public education was common across the country, even in remote communities. Even the tiniest frontier village rarely went long without a school, many states had organized school districts, and in a good number of areas the ratio of teachers to students was actually higher than in our own socialistic era. Perhaps what Hornberger meant to say was that there were few schools available to minorities. In many areas minorities lived with “compulsory ignorance,” as they were not only excluded from public schools, but discouraged (often violently) from seeking education. That accounts for a literacy rate of less than 40% among African-Americans in 1880. As laws changed and more schools became available for all, that rate grew by more than 30% over the next three decades. However, white literacy remained about the same — not surprising since whites were already suffering from those socialistic public schools well before 1880.

It truly was a golden age. One in which, thanks to that lack of nasty safety requirements and the troublesome health organizations, the average lifespan was all the way up to 40! An age in which, unfettered by the shackles of regulations on clean water and Hitler-like restrictions on sewage, 50,000 Americans died of cholera. An age in which parents could experience the ultimate freedom endowed by watching 1 child in 5 die in infancy, and 1 out of 3 fail to reach adulthood. Those numbers are for white Americans. Minorities experienced even more of the freedom that comes from burying your children.

It truly was a golden age where there were “no immigration controls” as long as, you know, you were white and European. Oh, and wealthy. Otherwise, you were subject to laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, or regulations that allowed anyone to be denied admission on the basis of poverty. Once you were in, you could love the freedom from Jim Crow laws, and the liberty that came with being denied to right to vote, or the ability to protect yourself from abuse. Of course Hispanic, Black, and Asian-Americans were all stimulated by the freedom that comes from having your home burned, your community ransacked, your wife and daughters raped, your belongings stolen, and your body left to turn as “strange fruit” in trees that sprouted across the country. All without un-American interference by the government. There’s no freedom like the freedom that comes when you aren’t forced to endure a trial by a jury of your peers and can get on with more expedited forms of justice.

It was a golden age when the last bands of Native Americans still struggling along under the illusion that they were free, were invited into the real liberty that is life on the reservation. And an age where they got to see the lands their ancestors had occupied for centuries or tens of centuries handed over for destruction. Imagine the liberty you get from seeing your lands taken away, your children beaten for speaking their own language, your religious practices used as an excuse for slaughter, and your entire culture erased.

A golden age, free from money-grubbing FEMA, where 400 people could die in a snow storm… then 400 more could die in the next. An age when Florida didn’t need no stinking assistance in picking up the thousands who died in hurricanes and Midwestern states laughed off the hundreds who died in tornadoes — all without warning from a communist government weather bureau. An age where dams could be built without concern for any damn fish living in the water, or any damn people living downstream. An age where you were free to inhale the asbestos that wafted from factories and the mercury fumes that steamed from metal refineries. And free to see the interesting effects such exposures had on your offspring.

An age without communist limits on commerce or immoral government tests, where thousands of Americans each year died from tainted food. Where you didn’t need no stinkin’ license to hand out medicines. An age free from the horrors of the FDA where parents could feel good about using a childrens’ cough remedy laced with opium, cocaine, formaldehyde, and wood alcohol. An age when nobody told us how much lead we could have in our water, or how much soot we could have in our air. An age where the injured and elderly had the God-given right to starve.

It was a golden age of rights for women in which… oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot for a moment that women don’t count when measuring freedom. Good thing, since in 1880 they couldn’t vote, were excluded from many occupations, faced restrictions on their ownership rights, and were often treated as the property of their husbands. Naturally, their reproductive rights consisted of the right to reproduce — or die trying.

Of course, what Hornberger was likely envisioning was the flip side of all this liberty. The freedom of being a rich in a society where those with money enjoyed tremendous advantage. The freedom that factory owners and robber barons enjoyed in treating workers as they wanted, employing private armies to beat or kill those who opposed them, and indulging any whim in the sure knowledge that a large enough bribe could smooth things over.

The good news for Jacob is that it’s not too late. It doesn’t require a time machine and a trip to the 1880s to experience all the joys of this golden age he so longs for. You can reach this land of paradise with a couple of flights and a short boat ride. It’s called Somalia.

The truth is, there are real Libertarians out there, people who place a very high value on individual rights and who believe this government — like most every government — too often interferes with those rights. Of course, actual Libertarians realize that for individual rights to have any meaning, they require the presence of a body that can ensure those rights. They know that freedom can’t be maintained in an absence of information, and that there must be agencies that create the transparency needed for effective individual action and ensure there are consequences to dishonesty. Real advocates of the free market realize that term has no meaning unless the market is free from coercion and the law is not defined by “might makes right.” They know that individual freedoms are incompatible with a system where corporations are treated as super-citizens and that Libertarianism requires that workers be more valued that abstract entities that live only on paper.

The difference between actual Libertarians and Republicans hiding from their tarnished name is quite easy. Actual Libertarians are concerned about the freedom of individuals. Conservatives use Libertarian as a code word meaning “I want to continue to enjoy all the privileges I do now, but I don’t want to share them with you and most of all I don’t want to pay any taxes.” Push come to shove, they’re happy to abbreviate that to “Screw freedom. I just don’t want to pay taxes.”
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
I prefer the market to handle itself but strong government oversight is necessary in an overly competitive society. "The market policing itself" is a proven failure in nearly every industry.

At the end of the day, GM is going back into the private sector and hopefully it'll be better run.

I gotta challenge this statement but I think you already knew that. We must allow markets to work & allow the economy to rebalance itself.

The lust, or greed for profit is always counterbalanced by the risk of loss. The problem is when DC intervenes in the business cycle, they try to lessen / eliminate the risk, thus distorts the markets. Time & time again
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
You didn't give me anything except more of your claptrap. I ask pertinent, direct questions and you go around them because they're over your head and you don't understand them. That's been proven again and again.
Everyone is affected by Obama's actions. He's the President of the United States. You don't even have to be America to be affected by his decisions and actions.
Spend less time trying to "expose" me and more exposing any information that you feel can back up your point. Information, not your opinion or your remarkably juvenile theories.

Keep digging that hole.

Until you acknowledge you don't know what the hell you are talking about, what is there to discuss?

If someone knows Detroit, Michigan, and the auto industry a whole hell of a lot better than Obama ever could, and you still choose to tell them about their own DAMN city, well... I'll just leave it at that.

I gotta challenge this statement but I think you already knew that. We must allow markets to work & allow the economy to rebalance itself.

The lust, or greed for profit is always counterbalanced by the risk of loss. The problem is when DC intervenes in the business cycle, they try to lessen / eliminate the risk, thus distorts the markets. Time & time again

The business cycle is a creation of the banks.

They have too many convinced it's normal and acceptable. They teach that garbage in schools to indoctrinate and brainwash the young into believing the lie.

It's a slick hustle.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
I gotta challenge this statement but I think you already knew that. We must allow markets to work & allow the economy to rebalance itself.

The lust, or greed for profit is always counterbalanced by the risk of loss. The problem is when DC intervenes in the business cycle, they try to lessen / eliminate the risk, thus distorts the markets. Time & time again

I'm all for allowing markets to work but in the counterbalance of loss and greed are real people who just want to go to work everyday and who companies cut all the time for a couple points on the market. Whether it's the financial sector and toxic assets (what an oxymoron) or Massey mines, the laissez faire approach is a tried and true failure.
To me, it's not a case of "Big Government" but a case of the government doing it's job of protecting customers and employees from the lust of Big Business. My problem has been for a long time that the two are too close together.


Keep digging that hole.

Until you acknowledge you don't know what the hell you are talking about, what is there to discuss?

If someone knows Detroit, Michigan, and the auto industry a whole hell of a lot better than Obama ever could, and you still choose to tell them about their own DAMN city, well... I'll just leave it at that.



.


Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I ask for specifics and you give generalizations based on your own biases and I'm diggging some kind of hole?
See how Lamarr can post news articles to back up what he's saying, that's what I'm asking for with you. If you don't or can't do that, use some specific information, something concrete that make sense.
Don't get mad at me being smart, get mad at yourself for being stupid.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
I'm all for allowing markets to work but in the counterbalance of loss and greed are real people who just want to go to work everyday and who companies cut all the time for a couple points on the market. Whether it's the financial sector and toxic assets (what an oxymoron) or Massey mines, the laissez faire approach is a tried and true failure.
To me, it's not a case of "Big Government" but a case of the government doing it's job of protecting customers and employees from the lust of Big Business. My problem has been for a long time that the two are too close together.





Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I ask for specifics and you give generalizations based on your own biases and I'm diggging some kind of hole?
See how Lamarr can post news articles to back up what he's saying, that's what I'm asking for with you. If you don't or can't do that, use some specific information, something concrete that make sense.
Don't get mad at me being smart, get mad at yourself for being stupid.

You want someone else to do the work for you while you present asinine arguments, half-witted rationalizations, and resort to simple-minded name-calling.

It's more fun for me to see you look ridiculous in your ignorance and see who else agrees with it. It lets me know who is the type to talk out their ass without any basis just to advance their love of Obama.

I've already concluded you are immune to facts, logic, reason, experience, and history from your blind worship of the Obama and blind obedience to the pro-government agenda.

Your comments about GM, Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan, its people, politics, and economy have proven what I always suspected.

You're so smart. You have all the answers. You must. You love Obama and the Federal government. That alone makes you qualified to make more smart posts.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
You want someone else to do the work for you while you present asinine arguments, half-witted rationalizations, and resort to simple-minded name-calling.

It's more fun for me to see you look ridiculous in your ignorance and see who else agrees with it. It lets me know who is the type to talk out their ass without any basis just to advance their love of Obama.

I've already concluded you are immune to facts, logic, reason, experience, and history from your blind worship of the Obama and blind obedience to the pro-government agenda.

Your comments about GM, Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan, its people, politics, and economy have proven what I always suspected.
Why did you come into this thread if you knew you couldn't hang? And when you realized you were in over your head, why keep coming back? A little age will hopefully grant you some wisdom and an ability to intelligently argue your points. Good luck.

You're so smart. You have all the answers. You must. You love Obama and the Federal government. That alone makes you qualified to make more smart posts.

Typical.

So expecting you to back up your opinion with some type of fact based examples is having someone else do my work for me? Very typical response.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Typical.

So expecting you to back up your opinion with some type of fact based examples is having someone else do my work for me? Very typical response.

Typical.

You expect everyone else to do your work, when you're the one making the dumb statements.

Very typical response.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
you wrong for that one Que.........but I gotta use it :)

Dave, I relate to what Cruise is saying because I was "born into the industry". When explaining the overall situation, where can one start? It's so complex & the combination of local, state, & federal govt, it just adds to the chaos. Hell, local politics alone will leave one with a massive headache

If I had to sum it up: it was an incremental time-bomb that finally exploded, leading us to where we are presently. It needs new blood, new ideas.

When I got a chance, I used to sit & listen to the older black execs. I guarantee you, you would look at the situation from a different angle. And I'm still learnin'
 
Top