Quote from: kramarat on July 09, 2012, 02:51:16 PM
In a free market economy, the best way to keep big businesses from failing, is to let them know that there's no help, if they do.

As these people are finding out. Climbing into bed wth the government is a lifetime deal. It's akin to selling your soul to the devil.

I don't really disagree, but I can't see where it matters when Government is so obviously owned by the rich.  Throw out the government and We're still owned by the same satanic master, aren't We? 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 02:52:13 PM
Liberals by nature are anti-American? Please feel free to elaborate as well.  And please, the "they want to destroy Our defense and tradition argument is false".

Honestly, Liberals seem to want to allow more money to better things than bombs, and that makes perfect sense. They also preserve Our traditions a bit better than the conservatives, lol, We're a land created by illegal immigrants and those damn Liberals love them to pieces. 

I never said there weren't bailouts before Bush and Obama. I just said that Bush started bailouts that Obama ran with. 

I was saying that both conservatives and Libs were spending to much and then I used the two Presidents for reference.
If You're really trying to say that I meant Bush is the first to bailout fat cats in history than You misunderstood, Or maybe I should specify the obvious a bit more. 



Here, I said - "Anytime an 'allocation of capital is combined with self-management' greed is present. From the Liberal big government to the conservative free market. The problem is the peoples perversion of an idea in search for self interest. "

What I'm saying, among other things, is that We are a nation that gives blank checks to big businesses, there's no "free market" its bought and paid for by the little guy then the little guy is forced to buy it again, at higher rate of course.   


Im saying that We are being screwed.



I shouldn't have to defend the obvious. A good rule would really be expect to be grilled by taxed over obvious things because taxed wants to argue. 



And that^ would be great, but it's not what happens, it's not reality.  You're arguing for fiction, not unlike the Liberal who argues for world peace.   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 03:01:42 PM


I don't really disagree, but I can't see where it matters when Government is so obviously owned by the rich.  Throw out the government and We're still owned by the same satanic master, aren't We?

If that's truly the case, I'll bet the rich aren't very happy with Obummer right now. He's promising to smash them and redistribute their money.

I suppose it could get worse though. I'd hate to see a poor person in the white house, with Obama's attitude. The key is to make government understand that all of us own them. Stealing from the rich to give to the supposed poor, will accomplish nothing. The poor are poor for a reason, and it ain't because they're victims of the rich.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 02:52:13 PM
Liberals by nature are anti-American? Please feel free to elaborate as well.  And please, the "they want to destroy Our defense and tradition argument is false".

Honestly, Liberals seem to want to allow more money to better things than bombs, and that makes perfect sense. They also preserve Our traditions a bit better than the conservatives, lol, We're a land created by illegal immigrants and those damn Liberals love them to pieces. 

No.  Liberals support theft of property by the government and promotes class envy.  They are typically anti-Second Amendment, and want the US to be weaker in defense.  All round, liberals are terrible for our society, and if not for legislation passed by liberals, they would all just die out.

Quote
I never said there weren't bailouts before Bush and Obama. I just said that Bush started bailouts that Obama ran with.

I was disagreeing with you that Bush didn't start the bailouts.  You added your own context after the fact.
 

Quote
I was saying that both conservatives and Libs were spending to much and then I used the two Presidents for reference.
If You're really trying to say that I meant Bush is the first to bailout fat cats in history than You misunderstood, Or maybe I should specify the obvious a bit more. 

I'm still waiting to see what conservatives contributed to bailouts....  Let me know when you have those links.

Quote
Here, I said - "Anytime an 'allocation of capital is combined with self-management' greed is present. From the Liberal big government to the conservative free market. The problem is the peoples perversion of an idea in search for self interest. "

What I'm saying is that We are a nation that gives blank checks to big businesses, there's no "free market" its bought and paid for by the little guy then the little guy is forced to buy it again, at higher rate of course.   


Im saying that We are being screwed.

If you are saying government is the problem, then I agree.

Quote
I shouldn't have to defend the obvious. A good rule would really be expect to be grilled by taxed over obvious things because taxed wants to argue. 

It wasn't obvious.

Quote
And that^ would be great, but it's not what happens, it's not reality.  You're arguing for fiction, not unlike the Liberal who argues for world peace.   

It is reality if we change direction and vote in more conservatives.  A free market is possible.  World peace isn't.

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
No.  Liberals support theft of property by the government and promotes class envy.  They are typically anti-Second Amendment, and want the US to be weaker in defense.  All round, liberals are terrible for our society, and if not for legislation passed by liberals, they would all just die out.

I agree that Liberals tend to stand anti-Second Amendment and I dislike that stance, but I disagree that They're, as a whole, bad on Our Society. They tend to have a deep care for People, and that's needed. What would be a good mix, IMO, is the Liberal heart, and the conservative mind.

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
I was disagreeing with you that Bush didn't start the bailouts.  You added your own context after the fact.

I didnt know I needed to explain history before referring to the recent bailouts. You're nit picking my words for argument sake. It's ok though, I now know I need to expound on My thoughts in the future. I shouldn't expect others to follow the obvious. I appreciate the lesson. 

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
  I'm still waiting to see what conservatives contributed to bailouts....  Let me know when you have those links.

Even if I provide a links to a conservative that was for the bailouts, like bush, You will simply say that 'they're not conservative'. Its happened already, go back and re-read.

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
If you are saying government is the problem, then I agree.

Im saying that People are the problem. Hope We can still agree though.   

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
It wasn't obvious.

Should've been, but then again You've thought me 'uninformed and young' thus far so sadly Youve jumped to yet another false conclusion. 

Quote from: taxed on July 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
It is reality if we change direction and vote in more conservatives.  A free market is possible.  World peace isn't.

Voting in more conservatives will be no different than voting in more liberals, specially being that corporations, even foreign ones, are allowed to buy Them these days.

http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/editorial/ci_21031466/corporations-get-more-political-say

Quote from: kramarat on July 09, 2012, 03:24:22 PM
If that's truly the case, I'll bet the rich aren't very happy with Obummer right now. He's promising to smash them and redistribute their money.

I suppose it could get worse though. I'd hate to see a poor person in the white house, with Obama's attitude. The key is to make government understand that all of us own them. Stealing from the rich to give to the supposed poor, will accomplish nothing. The poor are poor for a reason, and it ain't because they're victims of the rich.

Eh, Im sure they're just fine with Him. For the most part He's done exactly as they're bush patsy had done.  LOL, He's even gone further though, now we're going to be mandated to pay big insurance as if We were automobiles on the road of life. Lovely, being taxed with corporate representation. 


I disagree about 'the poor being the poor for a reason' though, Unless the reason is that when lots of people are scrambling to have the bigger house, car, boat, etc Then someones bound to be left out.  The more one conserves, the less there is to go around.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 04:10:52 PM


Even if I provide a links to a conservative that was for the bailouts

Allow me to reiterate the point people keep trying to get through to you.
They are not Conservatives if they act like liberals and give the tax payers money away as if it's their own to give.
Bailouts of any kind for private industry is socialism, plain and simple!
There is no such thing as too big to fail, someone will take it's place.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 04:16:53 PM
Eh, Im sure they're just fine with Him. For the most part He's done exactly as they're bush patsy had done.  LOL, He's even gone further though, now we're going to be mandated to pay big insurance as if We were automobiles on the road of life. Lovely, being taxed with corporate representation. 


I disagree about 'the poor being the poor for a reason' though, Unless the reason is that when lots of people are scrambling to have the bigger house, car, boat, etc Then someones bound to be left out.  The more one conserves, the less there is to go around.

Nice try. Some people will only ever be qualified to clean houses or wash cars. It doesn't entitle them to a $70K a year salary. Life just isn't fair or equal. The left is in the process of destroying our country, trying to make it that way.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 04:16:53 PM



I disagree about 'the poor being the poor for a reason' though, Unless the reason is that when lots of people are scrambling to have the bigger house, car, boat, etc Then someones bound to be left out.  The more one conserves, the less there is to go around.

Can you expand on that? Are you saying that if people save money, there's less to go around?

Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2012, 04:52:23 PM
Can you expand on that? Are you saying that if people save money, there's less to go around?

Hmm..When I save money, I invest the money.  People use it and I get more back in return so I can invest more.  Works for me.

Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Allow me to reiterate the point people keep trying to get through to you.
They are not Conservatives if they act like liberals and give the tax payers money away as if it's their own to give.
Bailouts of any kind for private industry is socialism, plain and simple!
There is no such thing as too big to fail, someone will take it's place.

The problem is the people who are trying to get through to Me are the same People that are still saying things like this- 

Quote from: Taxed on July 09, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
It is reality if we change direction and vote in more conservatives.

That's^ just like trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Taxed has already stated that He's aware that Bailouts for big business/rich are not new.

All I was saying, to begin with, was Conservatives and Libs are spending to much and giving away Our money to big business, and it needs to stop. 

I agree, there should be no such thing as to big to fail.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 05:06:58 PM


The problem is the people who are trying to get through to Me are the same People that are still saying things like this- 


That's^ just like trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Taxed has already stated that He's aware that Bailouts for big business/rich are not new.

All I was saying, to begin with, was Conservatives and Libs are spending to much and giving away Our money to big business, and it needs to stop. 

I agree, there should be no such thing as to big to fail.

I think you are using Conservative and Republican interchangeably - they are not interchangeable. A Conservative does not have to be a Republican and likewise, a Republican is not necessarily a Conservative. 

Conservatives, true Conservatives, believe as you do - there should be no such thing as "too big to fail".

Most of the spending spree is the brain child of Democrats and weak-kneed non-conservative Republicans!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Solar on July 09, 2012, 04:52:23 PM
Can you expand on that? Are you saying that if people save money, there's less to go around?

I'm saying that life is a lot like a game of musical chairs, some will find a seat, some wont.  It's not always because people are just not smarter than the other,  like some believe. To put it simply, everyone, IMO, is trying to grab a seat,  and sadly there's not always enough to go around.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 09, 2012, 05:14:43 PM

I'm saying that life is a lot like a game of musical chairs, some will find a seat, some wont.  It's not always because people are just not smarter than the other,  like some believe. To put it simply, everyone, IMO, is trying to grab a seat,  and sadly there's not always enough to go around.

Ah, the limited supply fallacy.

In real life, if there are not enough chairs, then someone, somewhere is willing to build more and sell them to the people who don't have them!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Ah, the limited supply fallacy.

In real life, if there are not enough chairs, then someone, somewhere is willing to build more and sell them to the people who don't have them!

-Dr Watt

Sounds great, but  tell that to them-




Or them -




The list goes on and on.


Education is key, if You do not have the best education Your chances are not as good as the People with. Education is a resource in great scarcity. Money drives the best educators to the best schools that cost, yep,  money.  Not everyone can afford to send their kids to the best schools.

Am I saying that many people cant bring themselves from rags to riches? No. I'm just saying that not everyone will be able to grab a seat in the wealthy circle.  And its not always Their fault.