This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:10 am » wrote:This precisely proves my point. The Golden Rule is the one thing humans can count on forever: He who has the gold makes the rule.
Then why would you possibly want Beltway politicians running the economy? :blink:

Because they and their contributors in Big Business will ride roughshod over the average citizen.


As has been seen under FDR and Obama, in particular.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:21 am » wrote:
Then why would you possibly want Beltway politicians running the economy? :blink:

Because they and their contributors in Big Business will ride roughshod over the average citizen.

As has been seen under FDR and Obama, in particular.
Who besides you ever said that I want beltway politicians running the economy?

If corrupt government is a problem, why would anyone be against fixing it? Against holding it accountable to do its job - which, like it or not, includes regulating the market. Or did you think the Easter Bunny would regulate the market? Or that the market - represented EXCLUSIVELY by employees, zero ownership oversight of day to day operations - can regulate itself?

Who is to regulate Wall Street, Clem? Say. Whom do YOU say it should be?

As to your Obama complaints, I had the same complaints about bush. I found the first unitary executive to be a threat to liberty, and I see Obama no differently. It isn't so easy to quell a president empowered with the definition "unitary executive," is it? He's the decider, you see. And you get to live with it - to like it or lump it., - because unitary executives are above the rules, it seems. A thing BECOMES legal, merely by their doing it - ESPECIALLY if they do so in the name of "national security" (while refusing to even secure our borders).

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 9:53 am » wrote:If you are talking about capitalism, and trying to float the idea that capitalism should or even CAN exist unregulated, then let me educate you: The stock market attracts TRILLIONS of anonymous dollars, looking for improvement. The trust investors show is predicated on the fact that Wall Street exchanges are regulated by the government. Just imagine if it were NOT regulated by government. All that money, and no one watching...
There need to be a few simple laws to govern those who engage in any kind of business.

But there are 10's of thousand of pages of them to the point no ordinary citizen or small businessman can possibly follow them.

Crushing business activity and making felons out of people doing business in what they think is a legal manner.

Further, Big Business uses its influence to crush competitors, to rig the game in its favor, to immunize itself against prosecution.


Was John Corzine ever indicted for illegally diverting 100's of millions of dollars of client funds into his private money losing schemes? No, of course not.

But anti-Obama Gibson Guitar was raided at gunpoint over a paperwork dispute and apparent legal business practice.

Wake the f*** up.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:18 am » wrote:
WTF? The topic is Economics, but you start bleating about foreign policy.

China is not Communist. If it were, it wouldn't have a powerful, strongly growing economy.

That is a literal impossibility.
This is precisely the religious nutjobbery that made Socialist Singapore "not socialist." The minute a nation's economy takes off, the whack jobs at Heritage tell you it "cannot" be anything but capitalist, since ONLY capitalism can succeed. This is the dame effeminate sillyness that had you declaring Canada has been undertaking free market reforms for 20 years and had slashed their spending in half relative to GDP, when in fact the practiced eight years of extremely limited "austerity," and are still bigger spenders than we here in the USA - whom you consider on the path to ruin based on spending.

You are a preposterous little fellow, Clem - you simply make up your own "facts," or regurgitate uncritically the made up "facts" of you nutter websites.

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:30 am » wrote: Who besides you ever said that I want beltway politicians running the economy?
That's what Socialism is, moonbat. Unless you're talking about people living on some commune.

Clearly you're not aware that Obama's munchkins have already written 20,000 or so pages of regulation micromanaging the health care sector.

Or the thousands of pages written by bureaucrats for Dodd-Fank.
If corrupt government is a problem, why would anyone be against fixing it? Against holding it accountable to do its job - which, like it or not, includes regulating the market.

Or did you think the Easter Bunny would regulate the market?
Government fix itself? Hold itself accountablel Clearly you believe in the Easter Bunny. :rofl:

Go out and shovel the tide with a spoon. When you've accomplished that, get back to me about reforming government.
Or that the market - represented EXCLUSIVELY by employees, zero ownership oversight of day to day operations - can regulate itself?

Who is to regulate Wall Street, Clem? Say. Whom do YOU say it should be?
There should be a few clear, simple laws.

Beyond that, the market will take care of itself, just like it does with consumer goods.

Does the government regulate, say, computers? Almost not at all, yet you can buy a computer with nearly a 100% chance of getting a good product and acceptable service.
As to your Obama complaints, I had the same complaints about bush. I found the first unitary executive to be a threat to liberty, and I see Obama no differently. It isn't so easy to quell a president empowered with the definition "unitary executive," is it? He's the decider, you see. And you get to live with it - to like it or lump it., - because unitary executives are above the rules, it seems. A thing BECOMES legal, merely by their doing it - ESPECIALLY if they do so in the name of "national security" (while refusing to even secure our borders).
Except that Bush abided by long accepted legal precedent and when overturned by the Supreme Court, abided by that decision.

When did Bush repeatedly re-write a law on his own, as Obama has done over and over and over with Obamacare?

Or immigration law, when he refused to abide by it and legalized many thousands of illegal immigrants?

to cite just a couple examples of many.

Your comparison as usual is spurious.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:18 am » wrote: That's a complete and utter lie. I use two definitions of Socialism. You refuse to accept one, in typical dishonest troll fashion.
I have quoted you, recently, using five. That's with snap backs intact.

But let's use YOUR claim. Two? And you use them depending on what partisan point you are trying to push.

It's odd that with two to choose between, BOTH of your "definitions" of socialism allow the government (of Singapore, and Singapore only) to own the means of production and still not fall within the parameters of your all-new, Heritage inspired definitions, son.

Everyone on this board can remember that Obama investing America's money in GM equaled socialism. America was not the ONLY investor, as is the case with Singapore's sovereign wealth fund - just one investor among many, with no day-to-day oversight of the company. The only differences between what Obie did and what Singapore does are these two:

1. Obie only invested a piddling amount in the market, and
2. You called what Obie did "socialism."

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:35 am » wrote: This is precisely the religious nutjobbery that made Socialist Singapore "not socialist." The minute a nation's economy takes off, the whack jobs at Heritage tell you it "cannot" be anything but capitalist, since ONLY capitalism can succeed. This is the dame effeminate sillyness that had you declaring Canada has been undertaking free market reforms for 20 years and had slashed their spending in half relative to GDP, when in fact the practiced eight years of extremely limited "austerity," and are still bigger spenders than we here in the USA - whom you consider on the path to ruin based on spending.

You are a preposterous little fellow, Clem - you simply make up your own "facts," or regurgitate uncritically the made up "facts" of you nutter websites.

I didn't call China "Capitalist." I only noted that it's not Communmist.

It is a hybrid of somewhat Free Market policies and Fascistic government control.

But even that allows for strong economic growth, because relative to the time it was Communist, it's far, far, far freer.

How typical of you to bungle clear English then call me preposterous. :rofl:

User avatar
golfboy

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 2,533
Politics: Conservative

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:35 am » wrote:You are a preposterous little fellow, Clem - you simply make up your own "facts," or regurgitate uncritically the made up "facts" of you nutter websites.
Well, isn't THAT ironic. :rolleyes:

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:42 am » wrote: I have quoted you, recently, using five. That's with snap backs intact.
Bulls***. Noting that Socialism is not an exact term is not a "definition."

So you've been caught lying again.

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

golfboy » 23 Jul 2014 10:44 am » wrote: Well, isn't THAT ironic. :rolleyes:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The word "irony" was made with CP in mind.

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 10:42 am » wrote:But let's use YOUR claim. Two? And you use them depending on what partisan point you are trying to push.

It's odd that with two to choose between, BOTH of your "definitions" of socialism allow the government (of Singapore, and Singapore only) to own the means of production and still not fall within the parameters of your all-new, Heritage inspired definitions, son.

Everyone on this board can remember that Obama investing America's money in GM equaled socialism. America was not the ONLY investor, as is the case with Singapore's sovereign wealth fund - just one investor among many, with no day-to-day oversight of the company. The only differences between what Obie did and what Singapore does are these two:

1. Obie only invested a piddling amount in the market, and
2. You called what Obie did "socialism."
Here's a hint, moonbat. Comparing one Socialistic action by Obama with an entire country's economy makes no sense whatsoever.

And not that you'll pay the slightest attention to reality, Heritage's index is relative. If Singapore ranks near the top infreedom, then de facto it is among the least Socialist in the world.

To fairly and accurately judge Singapore's system, you must compare it to, say, Italy or France or Greece or other more strongly Socialist countries.

But you're not fair or accurate, obviously.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:40 am » wrote: There should be a few clear, simple laws.
Made by GOVERNMENT? Are you insane? They can't be trusted!
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:40 am » wrote:Beyond that, the market will take care of itself, just like it does with consumer goods.
Yes, trillions of unwatched dollars will behave themselves, flowing always into the right pockets. It's like magic, only for adults.
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:40 am » wrote:Except that Bush abided by long accepted legal precedent and when overturned by the Supreme Court, abided by that decision.
You mean like Obie abiding by the recent slap down of ACA?

And when you say, "long accepted legal precedent," you cannot be talking about water-borading, now can you, young lady? Because the "long accepted legal precedent" ran the other way, forcing him to lawyer shop to find an attorney slimy enough to disgrace himself providing cover for bush to IGNOR "long accepted legal precedent."
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:40 am » wrote:When did Bush repeatedly re-write a law on his own, as Obama has done over and over and over with Obamacare?
Bush's signing statements were infamous for declaring a law to "mean" precisely the opposite of what congress intended. His E.Os outnumber obiie's two to one - as did Reagan's, as did Nixon's. Pappy Bush signed as many in one term as Obie has to date.
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:40 am » wrote:Or immigration law, when he refused to abide by it and legalized many thousands of illegal immigrants?
Bush refused to police our border - while simultaneously demanding we cede privacy and other rights in the name of security. It's the new deal - no borders. Not even with communist China, (which you have magically declared a democracy. Or maybe an oligarchy, or a bunny-ocracy - we only know that it ISN'T communist, because you say so. The chinese premier - leader of the communist party - disagrees, but you have ultimate jurisdiction in My Little Pony Land).

You may think it somehow better that Bush let them in and kept them illegal. It's actually worse. No one should be let in without papers. Doing so is a greater threat than merely loosening the rules. Folks with papers have more of a sense of belonging that fugitives who have no voice in government - taxed yet unrepresented.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote: Here's a hint, moonbat. Comparing one Socialistic action by Obama with an entire country's economy makes no sense whatsoever.
Word definitions don't magically change based on whether you are criticizing Obama or extolling the virtues of state ownership of the market, son.
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote:And not that you'll pay the slightest attention to reality, Heritage's index is relative. If Singapore ranks near the top infreedom, then de facto it is among the least Socialist in the world.
You claimed to employ only two definitions of socialism, yet persist in this third one.^ You claim that, BY DEFINITION, havng Heritage rank you as relatively free makes you "not" socialist.

So that is THREE definitiions that you prattle on about - always depending which one suits your immediate partisan purpose. How effeminate can you possibly be, man-titties?
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:52 am » wrote: To fairly and accurately judge Singapore's system, you must compare it to, say, Italy or France or Greece or other more strongly Socialist countries.

But you're not fair or accurate, obviously.
Why not compare it to the dictionary definition of the word socialist. instead? Why do YOU get to declare what it "must" be compared to? and in comparing, what indicators do you insist we compare? Merely demanding a "comparison" is just silly child-speak. It's foot stomping in the name of politics.

Are you even an adult? What kind of adult would insist on comparing an Asian city state situated in the intercontinental trade routes to mature European democracies with tens of millions of citizens? Could Singapore have made a difference in WWII? Can Singapore produce the Concorde SST? Does it have a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council?

Shall we compare that tiny island city state to China? To Russia? To the USA?

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:48 am » wrote: Bulls***. Noting that Socialism is not an exact term is not a "definition."

So you've been caught lying again.
"Caught" lying by a fellow who called Obama investing in the market socialism, and Singapore owning 30% of it "capitalism?"

I have a feeling that only the most koolaid-stained bathroom boys will agree with your assessment, you dishonest fleck of word-mangling Heritage-vomit.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
golfboy » 23 Jul 2014 10:44 am » wrote: Well, isn't THAT ironic. :rolleyes:
Oh, goodie. It's bring your kid to work day. Clem Jr., in the house.

The crowd breathlessly awaits mini-me's first, "me too!"

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 11:04 am » wrote: You claimed to employ only two definitions of socialism, yet persist in this third one.^ You claim that, BY DEFINITION, havng Heritage rank you as relatively free makes you "not" socialist.

So that is THREE definitiions that you prattle on about - always depending which one suits your immediate partisan purpose. How effeminate can you possibly be, man-titties?
Hey moonbat, both definitions of Socialism require government control of an economy by force of law or regulation.

That is the opposite of freedom.

So Heritage's Index is for practical purposes a ranking of the degree of Socialism of a country.
Why not compare it to the dictionary definition of the word socialist. instead?
I quoted a secondary definition, which you still have not acknowledged is valid.

Get back to me when you have the integrity to do so. :\

User avatar
shintao

Share      Unread post

User avatar
 
 
Posts: 42
Politics: Socialist

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 10:32 am » wrote: There need to be a few simple laws to govern those who engage in any kind of business.

But there are 10's of thousand of pages of them to the point no ordinary citizen or small businessman can possibly follow them.

Crushing business activity and making felons out of people doing business in what they think is a legal manner.

Further, Big Business uses its influence to crush competitors, to rig the game in its favor, to immunize itself against prosecution.

Was John Corzine ever indicted for illegally diverting 100's of millions of dollars of client funds into his private money losing schemes? No, of course not.

But anti-Obama Gibson Guitar was raided at gunpoint over a paperwork dispute and apparent legal business practice.

Wake the f*** up.
Laws are made after the fact, not before the fact, and they must cover every harm, hence so many regulations. It is what makes a socialist system superior to Capitalism.

User avatar
Southern indep

Share      Unread post

User avatar
INVICTA REX
INVICTA REX
Posts: 77
Politics: Independent
Location: Somewhere near by

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2014 4:55 am » wrote:The majority of nations which made Heritage's list have socialized health care, socialized retirement and socialized higher education - the stuff that heritage and the contards who worship there call socialism.

It seems that socialist countries are more economically free than capitalist ones - who knew?

Oh, wait - I did.

1Hong Kong
90.1
0.8

2Singapore
89.4
1.4

3Australia
82.0
-0.6

4Switzerland
81.6
0.6

5New Zealand
81.2
-0.2

6Canada
80.2
0.8

7Chile
78.7
-0.3

8Mauritius
76.5
-0.4

9Ireland
76.2
0.5

10Denmark
76.1
0.0
Your list has Hong Kong as number 1.... Kinda shots on your entire thread
Do we really need to go into how China's economy is inflated or how being a citizen in China sucks donkey balls.....

Im sure your all for sucking donkey balls but the rest of us don't wanna go down that road.

Then Singapore comes in second......
Course their economy is more free.... Their economy is based on lady boy's prostitution....
Last edited by Southern indep on 23 Jul 2014, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RichClem

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,274
Politics: Liberal

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 11:04 am » wrote: Why not compare it to the dictionary definition of the word socialist. instead?
If I follow your logic on this, then every country in the world is Socialist, because every country except one is less free than Singapore.
Because the index is relative.

Or if you refuse to acknowledge my claim about Heritage and Socialism, name one single country that is more Free Market Capitalist.

Another request that you'll stonewall and evade.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 11:15 am » wrote:
Hey moonbat, both definitions of Socialism require government control of an economy by force of law or regulation.

That is the opposite of freedom.

So Heritage's Index is for practical purposes a ranking of the degree of Socialism of a country.


I quoted a secondary definition, which you still have not acknowledged is valid.

Get back to me when you have the integrity to do so. :\
That's it?

That turd spew means that state ownership of the means of production is no longer socialism unless a black guy does it?

Do you REALLY get agreement from the bathroom boys on this ****, you pathetic hack? :rofl: