Sunday, August 25, 2013

Individual Rights

In our political discussions, certain words are usually tossed about.

Capitalism. Communism. Socialism. Fascism.

And now more lately, Corporatism.

There’s an intriguing bunch of “isms”. The definitions, theory, and practice of these “isms” have taken on numerous forms and functions; and they often stir up a lot of confusion and anger.

According to some definitions, I am both a capitalist and a socialist.

Just to help navigate through this discussion, I include as footnotes, definitions of the four “isms” from both Miriam-Webster and the American Heritage dictionaries. Corporatism is still being defined, but as they say of porn, we know it when we see it, where corporations have more rights than people.

Socialism as theory can be rigid, but is very flexible in practice. The same is true with Capitalism and Communism.  Fascism and Communism can be very rigid in both theory and practice, yet capitalistic and socialistic aspects endure under them. Dictatorship under any “ism” results in democracy being crushed, though.

This is exemplified by the corporate/government nexus we have that is tightening its grip as we speak. Yes we have fascistic mechanisms too. What we see growing in the US is antagonism for democracy. We have corporations and government eager for war, building a surveillance state and militarizing police departments.

We need corporations and business. But we need them to mind their own business, not meddle in our public elections.

It is not anti-business or anti-capitalism to want free public elections. I have a 401k and other investments. Does that make me a capitalist?

I've always thought we need regulated commerce. Is that socialism? Does that make me a Socialist? I've agreed that government should provide for the general welfare. Is that socialism? Does that make me a Socialist?

Is the Constitution a manifesto of Socialism?

No. But these are clearly socialistic. No nation is exclusive of capitalistic or socialistic systems. They would not function as free societies without a blend, or checks and balances, of “isms”. All “isms” can be exploited and twisted for abuse.

Socialized public service is not the same as a socialized economy. We don't have a system of worker ownership of production. We have been doing quite well with that mix of democracy, socialism and capitalism.

 But we have rigid ideologues who can't see this simple reality.

Democracy, voter registration, and poll access are being restricted, not the right to private property.

There’s a Forbes article called “Is Obama a Socialist?” (To them, of course Obama is a socialist)

A comment that follows makes a good point.

Obama does not advocate for the elimination of private property so he is not a socialist.

Conservatives do not do themselves any favors labeling everyone they don’t like “socialists”. The ordinary American has largely come to think of “socialism” as “A government that helps people” and “capitalism” is “A government that does not help people”, which is fundamentally incorrect but the inevitable result the conservative attack upon any who advocates for the government helping the ordinary citizen being labeled a “socialist”.

Sound familiar?

Americans are caught in an ideological war between two extremes where only one exists in reality. We don’t have a socialist economy or a socialist government. There’s no movement to abolish private property. We do have crony, cutthroat and corrupt capitalism waging a war on democracy from within the government.

The fictitious “socialist” agenda of no private property is being attacked by a real agenda that wants to accumulate ALL property, wealth and political power. They also want their financial risks socialized but their profit privatized. Hello Wall Street.

This is the real threat and danger of unregulated capitalism. The only cure is a socialized system of balance, with regulation of commerce and promotion of the general welfare. And I don’t mean corporate socialism where we keep bailing out the failed capitalists.

Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills

In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)

Now what are we going to do about banks writing their own legislation and regulations? Let the “free market” decide? Vote for the next candidate in their pocket? Or regulate them?

Giving banks and corporations the privilege of person-hood and citizenship, allowing them to use bribery money as “free speech” is the recipe for more disaster. Citizens United v FEC has wiped out McCain-Feingold. We need a law that both limits private campaign contributions, and addresses the issue of corporate money in our public elections.

I suggest we let the Constitution guide us. We agree a corporation is an artificial (man made) group of persons, property and money, a collective bound by their shared interest in productivity and profit. All we need is a law that says, regarding elections, a corporation is not a person, and not entitled to the same rights as we the people. I include unions. A union is also not a person.

Corporations, unions, and other artificial entities may keep their right to free speech in advertising their products and services, legal representation in court, and even lobbying politicians. Those are enough rights for a collective.

So with such a law, not one living soul would have his rights restricted. Some fat cats will bitch because their privilege of having their additional collective right to political speech will be gone. Their individual rights would be the same as yours, mine and every person.

Who was it who said:

“At the root of all their conceptual switches, there lies another, more fundamental one: the switch of the concept of rights from the individual to the collective—which means: the replacement of “The Rights of Man” by “The Rights of Mob.”

Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms."

Yes, that was none other than Ayn Rand.

Individual rights. This is what equality means.

Rights are individual, or not at all.

This is what Americans need to learn. This is what democracy needs to survive.

====

From Miriam-Webster Dictionary:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Communism : 1. a: a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian
 party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 . a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


Socialism: 1: various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2:a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

Capitalism n. An economic system characterized by freedom of the market with increasing concentration of private and corporate ownership of production and distribution means, proportionate to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. 2. A political or social system regarded as being based on this.

Communism n. A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and subsistence. 2. A political, economic or social doctrine aiming at the establishment of such a classless society. 3. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of revolutionary struggle toward this goal, the political movement representing it, or loosely, socialism as practiced in countries ruled by Communist parties.

 Fascism n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.


Socialism n. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. 2. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 3. Under Marxist-Leninist theory, the building, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the materiel base for communism

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
free0352 said...

I am both a capitalist and a socialist.

Thats like saying you are wet and dry at the same time. I don't think those terms mean what you think they mean.

I've agreed that government should provide for the general welfare.

The Constitution says promote ot PROVIDE. So yes, what you are saying is out of step with the American system of government and capitalism. You are for a competing socialist economic system.

Socialism is not a political system any more than capitalism is. Its an economic system. Attempts to blend the two, generally result in bankruptcy long term. They are basically mutually exclusive. Hence our 200 trillion in unfunded mandates.

Jerry Critter said...

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Note the use of the word "PROVIDE".

free0352 said...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



free0352 said...

In Article I, as "provide" comes directly after "common defense" the clear meaning is to provide security for the American people. Our government does this very well.

With the NSA, perhaps too well.

Jerry Critter said...

Free,
You said,

"The Constitution says promote ot PROVIDE."

I assume "ot" was suppose to be "not".

The fact is that the constitution uses both terms, promote AND provide. You are wrong when you say that it does not say "provide".

Jerry Critter said...

Free,
You can't even read. The word provide come before, not after, common defense AND general welfare. It clearly applies to both.

free0352 said...

the constitution uses both terms, promote AND provide

Context is everything. What you're talking about is the duty of the US Government to defend itself and provide law and order.

Jerry Critter said...

Time to read again, Free. The words are " general welfare", not "law and order". If the writers of the constitution wanted it to mean only law and order they would have written law and order.

free0352 said...

General welfare in Art I is broadly meant to mean a legislature, courts, and very basic government services. It didn't even mean a police force or fire department back then, let alone Medicade. The "general welfare clause" has been horribly abused as a legal argument to do damn near anything. That is not what the founders intended.

Not saying Medicade is unconstitutional. Its not. Simply that there is not provision for it or other types of welfare in our founding documents. Government can choose to do it... it has no duty to do so.

Jerry Critter said...

I think we both made our points. The readers can clearly decide if the constitution says the government shall provide for the general welfare or not.

Dave Dubya said...

I'd bet "general welfare" meant something different to each Founder. I think it was purposefully worded that way to provide flexibility for whatever needs arose. The Center for Disease Control comes to mind as an example. It invites debate and demands consensus or compromise.

Unfortunately these are no longer values in American politics. It's the "Right" way or the highway these days.

Dave Dubya said...

I thought this exchange at the previous Cheney post would fit better over here.

***********

Free:
I think its racist to insinuate black grandmothers can't figure out how to get a 16.00 state ID card and register to vote on time. I think they are plenty smart and can figure it out just fine.

DD:
I agree. They can figure it out.

Some of them can even take their car to whatever place they need to go. But some don't have a car. Some couldn't drive due to age and disability. Some don't have access to drivers. And many, many, more are not even grandmothers.

Republicans have calculated that additional restrictions on registration and access to polls weeds out mostly voters they don't want voting. How could anybody with a lick of sense not see that?

If voter impersonation was that serious and pervasive, they'd have a case. They don't have that case.

They have vote suppression in mind. Some have openly admitted it.

You're free to be their "true believer". There are always enough true believers who think Republicans are out to make things better for anyone but themselves.

You won't be alone. They have duped millions.

Free:
we have a mixed economy. And a President pushing for a full socialist one

DD:
Yeah, there you go again, with the level of hysteria when you accused little old me of "attacking corporate America" for saying a corporation is not a citizen.

It is "attacking corporate America" for saying our public elections are none of their business. So I'm "attacking corporate America" for saying their money corrupts politicians and buys legislation, buys de-regulation, buys tax breaks, buys sweetheart deals to scoop up our tax dollars.

If speaking the truth is "attacking corporate America", I guess I am guilty. Somehow I don't see them mortally wounded by my "thought-crime" against all their wealth, power and corruption.

My whispers of free speech are no threat to the thunder of their "free speech money".

A corporation is not a person and not a citizen. Rights, and elections, are for persons and citizens.

How about we let corporations participate in elections...just as soon as they show us proof of citizenship, register to vote, and show us ID at the polls?

Sound fair?

Or am I "attacking corporate America" for asking of them the same thing that Republicans demand from the disabled?




free0352 said...

If speaking the truth is "attacking corporate America"

The problem is, your "truth" is full of half-truths, misrepresentations, drooling repeats of things you don't understand and downright lies. Worse, when you progressive scamps get together and vote occasionally you win - such as in 2008. Your collective efforts since the 1970s have added up and today your cockamamie "ideas" -that are translated into policy- suck over 500 billion dollars a year out of the economy to fund your "safety net." The economic black hole you're so proud of is causing rampant unemployment, the degradation of the inner city (see Detroit for the most glaring example) and trainwreck entire industries (see logging and coal mining for but two examples). You claim to want to help working people, and then lobby hard to outlaw their jobs.

Worse, you fight hard for glaring attacks on individual rights such as we've been discussing with free speech - "Oh but its just corporations! They don't count!"

Cop out. You really just want the opposition to shut up, you and all progressives.

Such as the right to bare arms. You'll say out of one side of your mouth you don't trust the government and that its corrupt and then out of the other side make damn sure these "corrupt" leaders have a monopoly on force.

Such as the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The progressives have grown the surveillance state beyond anything even Dick Cheney had in mind - and then you cop out and tell us "they weren't really progressive. Meanwhile, the anti-war party is planning to bomb Syria... because -and this is hilarious- Syria bombed Syria. And even though its a card carrying progressive with his finger on the trigger, I'm quite sure if this likely disaster happens and the predictable public backlash occurs I'll hear from you Dave - "Obama isn't really a progressive and this was all done for the 'MIC.'"

Yeah, bullshit. Pure and simple.

You can't disown your poster child when the going gets rough. You gave us this asshole, now we -and you- are stuck with him.

You claim Progressives are for individual rights but your party trounces them at every opportunity, and when a defender of those rights (see Rand Paul) comes along you refuse to support him. No, the Progressive record is quite clear. You're for "rights" so long as they are YOUR rights. As Orwell told us, in socialist countries some animals are always more equal that others. What makes Progressives insidious is their claim its "the corporations" doing that, when the only corporations doing it are progressive ones - Green "jobs" tax money give-aways anyone?

The hypocrisy out of the professional left and its dupes is at an all time high. Time for some Libertarian Populism to clean up the mess you've made. Rand Paul 2016!

free0352 said...

Whoops did I say 500 billion? I meant 1.3 trillion a year. But who's
counting?

Dave Dubya said...

The problem is, your "truth" is full of half-truths, misrepresentations, drooling repeats of things you don't understand and downright lies.

Yeah, yeah, you say that all the time but never show one example.

So you actually believe it was liberal policies, and not the failure of capitalism toward American Workers, when the auto industry dumped on Detroit? Liberals opened our gates to foreign auto companies?

You are a true believer in profit over people. News flash! Corporate America has been attacking and abandoning Americans. The class war is waged by the elites. They have the power.

And they have dupes like you. Your side will win. America is losing.

Jerry Critter said...

There you go again, Free, misquoting the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything about "the right to bare arms". That sounds like a Muslim thing. Are a Muslim?

Now, if you are talking about the right to bear arms...

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Ah Jerry found a typo. Chalk up a win for the grammar police. Yawn.

it was liberal policies, and not the failure of capitalism toward American Workers, when the auto industry dumped on Detroit?

Yes. I don't say things I don't believe, or in this case KNOW.

How much of Detroit manufacturing didn't move overseas? A giant chunk of it moved to Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama etc. Why do you think that is?

Terrible Michigan and Detroit business policy that attacked buisness crushed the auto industry in Detroit. Now, anyone with the money abandons Detroit like the sinking ship it is. Detroit was going to be the model city for Progressives, and I guess it is.

As for profits, well... there are none being made in Detroit today. Great job, you've won! There isn't even a Wallmart in Detroit. Aren't you proud of all you've accomplished there?

Dave Dubya said...

business policy that attacked buisness

Poor corporate America! Not only do they suffer from my attacks, they attack themselves.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Ah Jerry found a typo. Chalk up a win for the grammar police. Yawn."

Well, it is indicative of a poor education on your part. The difference between "bare" and bear" was something I learned in...what, grade school? You must have cut class on that day.

The right to "bare" arms, eh? I agree, but only in summer and only at casual events.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The problem is, your 'truth' is full of half-truths, misrepresentations, drooling repeats of things you don't understand and downright lies."

If you view Dave's "half-truth" as a misrepresentation, please...indulge us with the truth of the missing half that you so adamantly judge Dave to not "understand".

Outright lies? Please cite some examples of "outright lies".

Dave, don't you realize that Free0352 has become incensed by your constant drooling? Please stop. You know you were taught better than that in "progressive scamp" school. ;-)


"You claim to want to help working people, and then lobby hard to outlaw their jobs."

Dave, stop lobbying hard to outlaw their jobs. You know that wasn't how we were taught to do it at progressive scamp school. ;-)


"Such as the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The progressives have grown the surveillance state beyond anything even Dick Cheney had in mind..."

No, actually, that's an outgrowth of the Military-Industrial Complex, which has exploded under the reign of the Corporate-State, which, not so coincidentally, has its roots in good ol' fashioned fascism.

That's your people.


"...you cop out and tell us they weren't really progressive."

They? They, who? I assume you're referring to Obama. If so, no, Dave's totally correct, he's not a progressive. He's actually a corporatist (but we've already been down this road, haven't we?). These two philosophies are a universe apart.

By the way, I have noticed, with you, that it's always a "cop-out" when you can't find a suitable reply, or counteract with sound reasoning. You always shoot indiscriminately when you're back on your heels. Is this what you learned in the military?

END OF PART I

Jefferson's Guardian said...

START OF PART II

"Meanwhile, the anti-war party is planning to bomb Syria... because -and this is hilarious- Syria bombed Syria."

The anti-war party is, I believe, the Green Party. Both the Republican and the current Democratic Party are one-and-the-same -- the only difference being that they belong to different wings of the exact same policy machine. I've coined the name of this party the "Corporatist Party". It reigns over the current Corporate-State.

As far as Syria chemical-bombing their own. No, don't believe it for a second. It was most likely the tail that wags the dog. It's another in a long line of false-flags.


"And even though its a card carrying progressive with his finger on the trigger, I'm quite sure if this likely disaster happens and the predictable public backlash occurs I'll hear from you Dave - 'Obama isn't really a progressive and this was all done for the MIC.'"

Dave's totally correct: (1) Obama is not a progressive. No secret there, and (2) Yes, every war of the modern era is waged for the sake of perpetual and on-going profitability.

Plus, the consequences are getting very dicey with so many nations abandoning the U.S. Dollar as the reserve currency of the world. Just like your training in the military, they're finding themselves back on their heels and shooting at anything that moves. The progressive community has seen this coming for years. Hell, we learned it at progressive scamp school!


"You claim Progressives are for individual rights but your party trounces them at every opportunity, and when a defender of those rights (see Rand Paul) comes along you refuse to support him."

I can only assume when you mention "progressives" and "your party" in the same sentence, you're referring to the Green Party. Certainly you're not referring to the Democratic Party as being "our" party, or being "progressive", are you? (If so, please scroll up and read the previous two replies.)

Rand Paul? I'm sorry, I can't support anybody named after Ayn Rand.

Jerry Critter said...

There would be a lot less war if no one and particularly no corporation was allowed to make a profit off of it. Let everything that the Department of Defense buys be supplied at cost.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Let everything that the Department of Defense buys be supplied at cost.

The president that says these words will see his Dealey Plaza within weeks.

And this is why no president may be progressive. They can cheer lead some social causes, but they don't stand in the way of the Empire's exercising its military power. He's also doing squat to stand in the way of the war on drugs too.

Obama cannot stand in the way of Insurance companies, with Medicare for all. He gives them more customers. He cannot confront the pharmaceutical, Alcohol and Tobacco corporations, but he can bust medical marijuana shops.

Free can't understand that this corporatist MIC appeasement is not progressive, even when he supports much of Obama's continuation of a still massive war on terror.

JG,

We repeatedly denounce and condemn Obama's support of the Bush/FISA and Bush/Patriot Act surveillance state. I think Cheney, Obama and Free support most of it.

But never mind all that. Free knows with "religious certainty" that we're true believers in Obama, just like he's a true believer in his Goddess of Greed, and his Big Dick's war mongering.

Righties cannot figure us out. We think so far outside their belief system, that they dare not open their minds enough to understand. The mere act of opening up their minds practically violates their belief system.

Their belief system tells them what liberals say is wrong. Therefore there's no need to even listen to them. It's all wrong anyway, "Right"?

free0352 said...

There would be a lot less war if no one and particularly no corporation was allowed to make a profit off of it. Let everything that the Department of Defense buys be supplied at cost.

Then why on earth would anyone make it? Perhaps that's your goal...

Anyway, they take that approach in North Korea, doesn't seem to be working.

Free can't understand that this corporatist MIC appeasement is not progressive, even when he supports much of Obama's continuation of a still massive war on terror

And what you can't understand Dave, is that the Progressives in power tricked you. Don't you feel a bit tricked on the eve of bombing Syria over WMD?

But never mind all that. Free knows with "religious certainty" that we're true believers in Obama

Being a true believer in the believers of Obama is the same thing.

You've been duped. You got suckered. The truth is, your Progressive movement is all about all of this. How did you not see this, it isn't as if you weren't warned?

First of all, I can't be a "righty" when I'm... you know... not on the right. Libertarians are our own thing. We don't fit into your right/left dichotomy. I don't know which your statement qualifies as - drooling ignorance or a downright lie.

Its one of them though. So anyway, there is your example.






free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Ways I would never be accepted on the Right by Free0352.

I'm for pretty much open borders. Right there the GOP would send me packing.

I'm against all forms of corporate welfare. The only way a company should get a check from Uncle Sam is for services rendered. No more throwing money at companies, ever, for any reason. Period. And damn sure no more bailouts, for any reason, period.

I think we should close a great many foreign military bases, starting with Europe, Japan and South Korea. And I think a close review of defense spending is long overdue, to weed out all the pork.

I can't say I'm for gay marriage because I don't think states should issue marriage licenses to anyone. That's a glorified tax on marriage. On the other hand, I'm hardly on the Christian Conservative wavelength on the issue. I think if two people regardless of sex want to enjoin their lives in a legal contract, I support that. And if a religious organization chooses to wed gays, its none of anyone's business.

I'm 100% against the drug war and 100% for the abolition of all drug laws.

I'm a card carrying atheist and vigorously support the separation of church and state.

I'm for separation of corporation and state, but of course that means giving up a lot of regulatory power used by the government to enjoin the two - beloved by Democrats and Republicans... and Progressives.

Yes I'm against compulsory union membership or compulsory dues, but beyond that I'm very pro union. I support the rights of workers to collectively bargain, and do not think unions should be forced to represent non-members. I think unions and management can probably do a whole lot better than government to determine what a wage, safe working conditions and worker benefits look like than some regulator in D.C. I think the government should recognize unions elected in a fair, blind election by membership who voted of their own free will. And I have no problem with government arbitrators, arbitrating disputes between the two.

I'm for a balanced budget - and if you think the GOP is for this you're crazy. See GWB Presidency.

I think the President needs Congressional approval before taking military action unless in circumstances where the US or its overseas operations are under attack or imminent attack. And I do mean imminent. Like in a matter of hours. And US personnel must be directly threatened. Not "kinda-sorta" threatened.

I'm against 100% of foreign aid. If you think the GOP is for this too - again see GWB Presidency. The GOP loves foreign aid. Then again so do Democrats...

I don't think one dime of taxpayer money should go to any religious organization for any reason no matter how humanitarian.

So these are just a few ways that I would be booted out of the GOP in under five seconds. However, it puts me in line about 90% with Libertarians. I've always been a Libertarian. Thinking government isn't the answer doesn't make you "right wing." It just makes you smart. The truth is the GOP loves big government, maybe as much as the left does. It simply seeks to hook up a different class of people than Democrats, and as you yourselves admit that is even changing. You want to stop "corporatism" vote Libertarian. Corporations will never see another dime without providing product or service for it first, and the federal government will be so strapped for cash it won't be able to pork out of the necessities. They'll have to make every tax dollar count.

free0352 said...

Oh and I forgot.

I'm 100% against the growth of NSA databasing of American citizens, and I believe very strongly that the 4th Amendment covers electronic communications and before surveying or collecting on any American the NSA or any branch of the US Government should get a warrant from an actual judge and not some invisible court no one ever reviews.

free0352 said...

Oh, and I'm also for closing almost ALL tax deductions. Not a popular position on the right. Just try floating that one to a bunch of Republicans sometime and see how fast their heads explode.

Dave Dubya said...


I happen to agree with several things on your list. D's and R's are in the same club in so many ways. I think R's are about as conservative as D's are progressive, which is hardly at all of either.

While you can easily see the distinction in your views from the GOP, you're utterly blind to my differences, or progressive differences with Democrats.

Corporatism is neither liberal nor conservative. But hey have to fool their bases with the gibberish they demand in order to serve their true masters.

the Progressives in power tricked you

I just gave you examples of non-progressive actions by Obama. Deal killers. He is no progressive.

I knew what he was about the second he supported Bush's FISA amendment in '08.

Since when have there been progressives in power? President Bernie Sanders would be when.

We have a government under the boot of Wall Street, AIPAC and the MIC, and you cry about "progressives in power". Talk about a disconnect.

People should be defined by their actions, not by the words of politicians and their corporate media shills. That's not how it is, unfortunately.

You're so far to the Right, or tricked by Republicans, that you think Obama is a progressive, maybe even a Marxist. You're tricked by the Republicans that voter restrictions are not calculated election tampering. You're tricked by Republicans into thinking progressives are in control of anything. You're tricked into saying corporations should be separate from government, but want them to participate in elections under the individual rights that only citizens were intended to have.

Progressives have as much chance of getting into the White House as someone who refuses to kiss AIPAC ass, or demands corporations are not citizens, and therefor should not participate in public elections; or demands an end to the drug war; or proposes Medicare for all.

No corporate free speech money for them.

Obama was elected because Bush/Cheney Republicans were treacherous liars and left us the worst economy since the last great Republican Depression.

Obama did fool a lot of true believers, but it is obvious to any rational person I'm not one. Obama fooled his believers like Cheney did. Too many people believe what they want to believe. You are no different.

free0352 said...

While you can easily see the distinction in your views from the GOP, you're utterly blind to my differences, or progressive differences with Democrats.

No I get what you're saying Dave. The issue isn't that you haven't communicated your point to me. My counter point to it is this. Libertarians can be proud of our leaders. You might not like them, but we do and that's what counts. Take moderate libertarian (little L libertarians in the GOP) Republicans like Rand Paul. We don't have to say... "He didn't do it right." Sure there are areas where Libertarians disagree with him, but we don't have to deny he's affiliated with us and for sure he doesn't lie about what he's about. He's one of the most honest politicians in D.C. agree or disagree with him.

What I'm telling you, is that Obama and PROGRESSIVES lied to you and you believed them. So you might have thought your movement was about x, but it was really about y. You might have thought being a progressive was about helping people and economic justice and whatever... but it was really about something else. They lied to you about that and progressive leaders are still lying to you.

You might want to disown your leaders now, but you can't deny they were your leaders within your faction of the Democrat Party and they have turned on everything you stood for. Literally everything. Let me ask you, do you think they changed - like DC corrupted them, or have they just been lying to you all this time? Do you think just maybe the progressive movement within the Democrat Party and it as a whole outside of it might just be based on a lie? Like maybe some powerful people who like power used you and your beliefs to get power? Because that's what it looks like to me.

If I were you I'd abandon that ship fast. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You remind me of one of the animals on the farm who wake up one day and realize the pigs are more equal than you.

Its not your belief in Obama that I question, its your belief in a movement which is two faced and exploits you.





Dave Dubya said...

As we've stated so many times, you don't understand there's a huge difference between progressives and Democrats. You only see the differences between Republicans and Libertarians.

free0352 said...

I believe you think there is a difference. Of that I have no doubt.

Dave Dubya said...

So you believe every Democrat is a progressive?

Got it, Rush.

free0352 said...

Not hardly. I believe the progressive movement is a puppet of the Democrat party and that you are being manipulated by Democrats.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

67 alizinerHey kids! It's fill in the blank time! Let's see how you score!

I believe the ___________ movement is a puppet of the __________ party and that you are being manipulated by ____________.

Dave Dubya said...

Hate to break the news here, but the entire country is being manipulated by the Republican/Democratic party puppets of Wall Street and the MIC.

Keep giving corporations person-hood, money as free speech, and rights of citizenship; that should fix it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Keep giving corporations person-hood, money as free speech, and rights of citizenship; that should fix it."

Absolutely! Obviously, that's what Free0352's libertarianism (AKA "the tea party") proposes. Can't you see, Dave, how much it has improved the economic landscape already? "Gee wiz, Beaver, why didn't we think of this before?"

Libertarianism is a wet-dream. There's not one example on earth where a society has successfully implemented and sustained this type of "anything goes", laissez-faire, mentality. With government regulation essentially in name only, and the EPA only a shell of an agency that's controlled by the very corporations it's mandated to monitor, we're rapidly accelerating into a corporate-fascism that's destroying our economy and poisoning our environment.

Free0352's libertarianism is gaining momentum, and it'll end up killing his family as well as ours. When he finally figures this out, it'll be too late to do anything about it. It probably already is.

By the way, I have no idea what that "67 aliziner" means right before my "Hey Kids!" salutation. (I didn't put it in there.) Could this be Google's code to identify all of us who graduated, with honors, from "progressive scamp school"? ;-)

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "My counter point to it is this. Libertarians can be proud of our leaders."

Initially, Germans, and especially Nazis, were proud of Hitler.

free0352 said...

There's not one example on earth where a society has successfully implemented and sustained this type of "anything goes", laissez-faire, mentality

The United States of America, from 1775 till about 1914.

Free0352's libertarianism is gaining momentum,

That's one thing we can agree on. The big government of liberalism has failed, the big government of conservatism has failed, and now the huge government of progressivism has failed. Americans are starting to remember they did just fine without it, and would be better off without it.

and it'll end up killing his family as well as ours.

Funny, what political party in the last few years has been in charge and has instituted indefinite detention without due process and enormous and intrusive domestic spying? Who is currently trying to figure out a way to go to war with Syria? And is that party the one Progressives typically vote for?

Yup, thought so.

Initially, Germans, and especially Nazis, were proud of Hitler

And Progressives were sure proud of Obama... not that Obama is Hitler, and for that matter Hitler was hardly Libertarian.

All I can say to that, is when our leaders run things they reduce the power of the state instead of going on federal law making sprees like the guy you voted into office.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The United States of America, from 1775 till about 1914."

And from this country's inception (and even before) until around the mid-to-late 1830s, when states issued corporate charters they were granted for only a limited lifespan -- twenty to thirty years, or so -- with concise and specific language as to what each particular corporation could engage in and do. Once the charter ran its course, the company was dissolved and liquidated.

When, and if, libertarianism cites this as a main component of its platform, I'll be on-board.



"...the big government of conservatism has failed, and now the huge government of progressivism has failed."

We don't have a progressive government. Therein lies the problem. We have a "corporatist" government (which, for some strange reason, isn't sinking in with you).

And, yes, conservatism has failed. This we can agree upon. The steep decline started with the Ronald Reagan era, while the two major parties morphed into this colossal aggregate of corporatism.


"...what political party in the last few years has been in charge and has instituted indefinite detention without due process and enormous and intrusive domestic spying? Who is currently trying to figure out a way to go to war with Syria?

The "corporatist party", which I've made very clear to you on several occasions.


"And is that party the one Progressives typically vote for?"

Not progressives, but Democrats did.


"Yup, thought so."

Actually, I find you to typically be devoid of thought.


"And Progressives were sure proud of Obama..."

Yes, many were fooled. If you look back at video of the things he said while campaigning for 2008, he did say many of the right things...things progressives could go along with and embrace.


"...not that Obama is Hitler, and for that matter Hitler was hardly Libertarian."

And because of your stance on "a strong national defense", I guess, then, you are more like Hitler.

No, I suppose Hitler wasn't libertarian. But, he was a demagogue, as are many libertarians -- such as Rand Paul.


"...like the guy you voted into office."

My guy never got into public office. I thought that I made that crystal clear several times in the past.

Too much DU again?

Dave Dubya said...

We all know that the ultimate “Libertarian” dream is rule by the economic elites. Why else would the Kochs start their own political Tea Party?

Here’s what that dream is buying:

Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills

In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)

Way to go, Puppets of Wall Street. We know who you really represent.

Some Democrats, the progressive leaning rarity, are at least asking questions.

The Leveraged Buyout of America

Giant bank holding companies now own airports, toll roads, and ports; control power plants; and store and hoard vast quantities of commodities of all sorts. They are systematically buying up or gaining control of the essential lifelines of the economy. How have they pulled this off, and where have they gotten the money?
by Ellen Brown

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dated June 27, 2013, US Representative Alan Grayson and three co-signers expressed concern about the expansion of large banks into what have traditionally been non-financial commercial spheres. Specifically:

[W]e are concerned about how large banks have recently expanded their businesses into such fields as electric power production, oil refining and distribution, owning and operating of public assets such as ports and airports, and even uranium mining.

After listing some disturbing examples, they observed:

According to legal scholar Saule Omarova, over the past five years, there has been a “quiet transformation of U.S. financial holding companies.” These financial services companies have become global merchants that seek to extract rent from any commercial or financial business activity within their reach. They have used legal authority in Graham-Leach-Bliley to subvert the “foundational principle of separation of banking from commerce”. . . .

It seems like there is a significant macro-economic risk in having a massive entity like, say JP Morgan, both issuing credit cards and mortgages, managing municipal bond offerings, selling gasoline and electric power, running large oil tankers, trading derivatives, and owning and operating airports, in multiple countries.

free0352 said...

We have a "corporatist" government (which, for some strange reason, isn't sinking in with you).

Its sunk in that you think a few elites are running our government. I agree. What you have yet to realize is progressivism is what they use to manipulate you.

The "corporatist party", which I've made very clear to you on several occasions

Yes, the party that controls the progressive movement.

My guy never got into public office

I was under the impression you voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Bob Barr, who did you vote for?

As for Libertarians and Hitler, you know us Libertarians. Conspiring to take over your government in order to leave you alone.





free0352 said...

We all know that the ultimate “Libertarian” dream is rule by the economic elites

The ultimate dream of Libertarians is rule by no one. A small government constrained by law and checks and balances that does some very basic functions like courts and national defense.

Here’s what that dream is buying:

Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills


The Libertarian policy would be no financial bill for them to write.


Jerry Critter said...

"The Libertarian policy would be no financial bill for them to write."

What could the corporate financial interests want more than no financial bill at all? No financial bill is libertarians doing the bidding of corporatists and is a corporatist's wet dream.

Dave Dubya said...







Jerry,
libertarians doing the bidding of corporatists

Corporatism welcomes "libertarianism" to help liberate them from those pesky, but Constitutional, taxes and regulation.

As Corporatism overcomes America, it is wrapped in libertarianism with bows of conservatism.

But fear not! We shall all be set free. (Some more free than others, you understand, especially wealthy "libertarians" like the Kochs.)

We shall become a proud non-democracy, in which a small government constrained by law, (and checks and balances by Wall Street) that does some very basic functions like courts and national defense. (No pesky, but Constitutional, taxes and regulation.)

A small government, small enough to be dependent on a corporate Wall Street MIC, and under the control of de-regulated corporate power.

Yes, someone really is, “Conspiring to take over your government in order to leave you alone.”

The will leave us all alone. Alone without government representation. Alone without minimum wage, alone without job benefits, alone without pensions, alone without unions, alone without safety nets, alone without public roads, infrastructure, fire and police. Alone without public anything. Privatization would be King. Like a nice walk in a park? Time to cough up the cash for your Brave New libertarian corporate masters. Need to use a road? Pay your toll to the libertarian corporate owners. They’ll own it all. And they will take it all, for their greed has no limit.


free0352 said...

What could the corporate financial interests want more than no financial bill at all?

Banks like Goldman and Citi would lose a lot of their power and monopolistic hold on the bond market among others. They're loath to lose their favored status. Sure some banks would love this, others would go out of business without Uncle Sam to bail them out and feed them cheap money.

Corporatism welcomes "libertarianism" to help liberate them from those pesky, but Constitutional, taxes and regulation

No they don't. They hate it with the power of a thousand suns.

"I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought."

-Chris Christie

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms"

-John McCain

Care for me to go on about how the GOP feels about Libertarians?

As for how the left feels about us, well... you own comments do just fine. However, you need to remember that you so called liberal politicians who the progressive movement supported hands out monopolies and corporate goodies by the truckload.

You don't need a nanny state to take care of you from cradle to grave. These "elites" you loath so much have you tricked into thinking you need them. What you're basically crying about isn't that you want "them" to take care of you - you admit this. You just complain about how they are taking care of you.

When will you realize that you surrender all your power to them the minute you take their welfare check. Your desire for dhimmitude to these very elites you complain about is what is causing the very mess you're complaining about.

You don't need them, you just want them. Its like a spoiled child crying they don't like the dinner mom served them.







free0352 said...

I was under the impression you voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Bob Barr, who did you vote for?

Well?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Its sunk in that you think a few elites are running our government. I agree. What you have yet to realize is progressivism is what they use to manipulate you."

Claiming that a "few" elites are running the show is very relative. The exact number doesn't matter. I do believe that our government is controlled by those other than we elected. Those we've normally associated with leadership roles and responsibilities are figureheads at most. And I don't believe this is a recent phenomenon. It goes back to at least the Reagan era.

The progressivism I follow has nothing in common with the corporate-state that libertarianism supports. It appears to me you're the one being manipulated. That's exactly why I refer to you as "Tool-Boy". You, and your idealistic libertarianism, are in bed with corporatism. Corporatism provides the mechanism with which libertarianism breathes and sustains itself. Without corporatism, which has grown exponentially over the years, libertarianism would have died on the vine a couple of decades ago. Your party's growth mirrors the growth of corporatism, simply because it feeds from the same source.

The demise of progressivism ("liberalism") has been inversely proportional to the growth of corporatism (of which libertarianism is a tag-along child).

As is very usual with you, you start projecting inane and senseless remarks whenever your favored political philosophy gets linked to the corruption we have under the corporate-state. To even suggest a link between progressivism and corporatism is disingenuous at best.


"I was under the impression you voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Bob Barr, who did you vote for?"

Nope, your impression is wrong. Ralph Nader ran as an Independent in '08 and was on my state's ballot. He was my man that year, and also in the two previous elections ('04, and in '00 as a Green). I even voted for Ross Perot in 1992, recognizing way back then that the system was hopelessly corrupt and owned by corporate interests.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

That's exactly why I refer to you as "Tool-Boy".

I know its because you really have a crush on me. Its a little creepy but I can deal with it.

You, and your idealistic libertarianism, are in bed with corporatism. Corporatism provides the mechanism with which libertarianism breathes and sustains itself.

Yes, its all an evil conspiracy to-

1: Allow you to keep 90% of your paycheck at the end of the month.

2: Not tell you what to do.

3: Not care what you do, so long as you don't hurt anyone else.

4: Provide a legal mechanism to deal with people who can't figure out 2 and 3.

We're like Sith Lords over here. The Sith Lords of freedom.

The demise of progressivism ("liberalism") has been inversely proportional to the growth of corporatism (of which libertarianism is a tag-along child)

No, its probably because every time you elect someone, you kick them out of the movement for not being pure enough. All kidding aside. We're the ones preaching freedom, as in drastically fewer rules. That's what freedom is, absence of rules. We're not anarchists, we like a few rules, but not many. Not like Progressives, who want lots, and lots, and lots of rules. They give you all these rules, and then tell you all those rules will make you free. And then you blame it on rich people when nobody fucking wants every aspect of their lives except gay marriage and abortion (the only freedoms you folks seem to like) run with an iron fist.

I even voted for Ross Perot in 1992, recognizing way back then that the system was hopelessly corrupt and owned by corporate interests.

So you voted for the billionaire, yet the eye doctor from Texas isn't okay.

Wow.

free0352 said...

By the way, just because you coopted "liberal," it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Libertarians are the real liberals.

Dave Dubya said...

Libertarians are the real liberals. is as dated as the "classical liberalism" you linked to.

Yet "Libertarians" are squawking about corporate person-hood, and corporate rights of citizenship in both elections and government. This is not what libertarianism was meant to be. They USED to be about individual rights and freedom, not corporate dominance of political speech and government.

Corporate power has been superseding state power. Is this still news to some?

Libertarians are either for individual rights or not. Individual rights are being trumped by corporate rights. Even Rand saw the issue of "collective rights" trumping individual rights, albeit through her "objectivist" colored lenses.

Corporations are under no obligation to respect or enforce rights. What happens when a weakened, corporate dominated government cannot enforce judgment against corporate malfeasance and injury to citizens?

It would be corporate Neo feudlism.

This is why we need a Constitutional government with power over corporations. It is the only way to exercise the Constitutional mandates for regulated commerce and taxation.

Corporations are not citizens. They should not have rights of citizenship and access to public elections. No good has come of it, and disaster will follow.



Dave Dubya said...

The Christie/McCain sideshow comments are all about the Republicans reminding the "libertarians" of what Party they belong to, the Republican Party.

The GOP and the Koch/Paul "libertarians" care only for the interests of Big Money. That is all the Tea Party is about. They have NOTHING to say about the drug war, private prisons, Fundamentalist demands for religion in government, etc. You're gullible to believe otherwise.

Want to know an example of who the real libertarians are?

We the people.

WE are the ones who got ballot initiatives to overturn the insane Reefer Madness propagated by the corporate government nexus.

The corporate government propaganda always fools the public for a while. Their drug war debacle is unraveling.

We can hope Americans wake up to the surveillance state in time. I doubt they will. Overturning reeefer madness will be easy compared to the larger programs of the corporate police state.

The Reagan Revolution kicked it off. Let's see how far corporate citizenship and rights in elections and influence over government will take us.

I'm somehow not sorry if I miss the grand finale.



free0352 said...

Actually the "Reagan Revolution" didn't kick "it" off when it comes to the surveillance state.

It was Progressive Jimmy Carter.

The most Reagan did was in AE 12333 he ordered the FBI and CIA to speak to one another again. The two agencies had not cooperated since the church committee. You see, its "progressives" who grow this stuff. Oh let me guess, Carter wasn't a real progressive too?

You see for all your we the people crap, you have a progressive coming up with more, and more rules. More and more regulations to follow. More and more fees and taxes to be paid. When are you going to wake up and realize that the reason the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement is growing and yours is imploding is because people do not want to have their lives run by THE GOVERNMENT. Maybe you need Uncle Sam to tell YOU what to do, but most Americans reject that view.




Dave Dubya said...

You’re so young and you think you know history. LOL! Obviously you don’t even know who J. Edgar Hoover was. Yes, way before Carter, domestic surveillance was an abuse by the Right.

Under Carter FISA was about “Foreign Intelligence”, but that was changed dramatically by Bush, wasn’t it?

Yeah, Rush, it wasn't Reagan? Nixon disregarded a study recommending decriminalizing weed, he had a drug war to launch Then came drug war property forfeiture and asset seizure, also vastly expanded under the "Just say no" Reagan era when crack hysteria fueled mandatory minimum sentences. Liberal ideas, right?

Sure, Rush. Yeah started by Nixon and expanded by Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush.

Of course, this absurd argument against my “we the people crap” is your distracting from my point that “We the people” are the real libertarians.

That fact must bug the crap out of you. Democracy and all.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Under Carter FISA was about “Foreign Intelligence”, but that was changed dramatically by Bush, wasn’t it?

Boy who doesn't know history? Go Google the Echelon and Centraspike programs. They were started by Carter - and they spied domestically. Of course not nearly in the same league as recent years. Who grew that to the massive 500 billion dollar monster in the last six years btw? As for the George Bush expansions, can't really defend George on that. Probably one of the reasons I didn't vote for him. Further, one would hardly accuse GWB of being a Libertarian anymore than one would accuse Barack Obama, so I'm not sure what you point is.

As for we Libertarians, its Rand Paul and Justin Amash who are leading the fight against it. Not Progressives, the majority of whom are for it.

Your welcome.

Course you won't support the real effort to end the surveillance state. The one being spearheaded by Libertarians. Too busy prattling on about some false concept of economic justice while the real patriots do the dirty work.

free0352 said...

And who is it that is getting this whole Syria thing shut down?

That would be us.

Again, your welcome. But by all means don't help with that. You have to remain ideologically pure and can't be bothered to actually do anything. Perhaps this is why the progressive movement is nigh extinct according to you and Jeff?

Dave Dubya said...

es, we the people, not the Kochs and Pauls have done the real work in reforming the stupid corporatist drug war.

And yes, way before Carter, domestic surveillance was an abuse by the Right.

Can't quite swallow these facts? Carter didn't start abusive surveillance. Fact. Check out what the drug was has to do with the expansion of that business.

You could be effective if you supported your arguments with facts, you know.

Course you won't support the real effort to end the surveillance state. Not if it means supporting corporatists who think it's ok to refuse service based on race.

At lease you grudgingly see some progressives opposing the abuses, although refuse to include Conyers as one of the active persons for some reason.

But your brain is programmed to say "Progressives want a police state".

But I use my limited free speech, that is words, to oppose it. Not much else I can do. Not much else anyone else can do really. What are you doing to make a difference?

Syria? LOL! Yeah, just imagine the different tune you'd be singing if your Big Dick was still in charge and telling us what to do with Syria and WMD's and connections to terrorists.

Yeah, we know, your "libertatianism" goes out the window real fast then. Crush the poor AND bomb the Arabs is what your're about.

And who is it that is getting this whole Syria thing shut down?

80% of Americans at least want congressional approval. That would translate as war if a Republican were in the White House, no war if a Dem.

Not Progressives, the majority of whom are for it.

The majority of WHO are for WHAT, exactly? And you pulled this "fact" from what orifice?







Dave Dubya said...

es, we the people, not the Kochs and Pauls have done the real work in reforming the stupid corporatist drug war.

And yes, way before Carter, domestic surveillance was an abuse by the Right.

Can't quite swallow these facts? Carter didn't start abusive surveillance. Fact. Check out what the drug was has to do with the expansion of that business.

You could be effective if you supported your arguments with facts, you know.

Course you won't support the real effort to end the surveillance state. Not if it means supporting corporatists who think it's ok to refuse service based on race.

At lease you grudgingly see some progressives opposing the abuses, although refuse to include Conyers as one of the active persons for some reason.

But your brain is programmed to say "Progressives want a police state".

But I use my limited free speech, that is words, to oppose it. Not much else I can do. Not much else anyone else can do really. What are you doing to make a difference?

Syria? LOL! Yeah, just imagine the different tune you'd be singing if your Big Dick was still in charge and telling us what to do with Syria and WMD's and connections to terrorists.

Yeah, we know, your "libertatianism" goes out the window real fast then. Crush the poor AND bomb the Arabs is what your're about.

And who is it that is getting this whole Syria thing shut down?

80% of Americans at least want congressional approval. That would translate as war if a Republican were in the White House, no war if a Dem.

Not Progressives, the majority of whom are for it.

The majority of WHO are for WHAT, exactly? And you pulled this "fact" from what orifice?







free0352 said...

Yes I know what MK Ultra was. I would also not Libertarians didn't have anything to do with it, and in fact the Libertarian party didn't exist during this time. That is a fact. So what is your point?

Not if it means supporting corporatists who think it's ok to refuse service based on race.

Yes, because nothing will end racism quicker than controlling hiring practices by private individuals. We've tried your way for half a century. That's a fact. Would you say its worked? How are race relations in America? Perhaps our way which asks people to choose the right thing, and allows boycotts and choice to work in the other direction might be more effective. We don't want to drive racists into the shadows. We like them out in the open for everyone to see, and not do business with. That doesn't make us racists, we just have a different plan. But its typical that a progressive can't see an answer to a problem beyond a government fist.

But I use my limited free speech

Please expound. What is limiting your free speech? Did a Libertarian come and delete one of your blog posts that can theoretically be viewed by about a billion people?

Syria? LOL! Yeah, just imagine the different tune you'd be singing if your Big Dick was still in charge and telling us what to do with Syria and WMD's and connections to terrorists.

No. I would not. I didn't support Kosovo or Bosnia by Clinton, nor did I support Bush in Liberia.

bomb the Arabs is what your're about.

I don't have any problem with Arabs. In fact I've risked my life to save them more times than I care to remember, and fought side by side with them as well. I've seen Iraqi Arabs do more for the United States than most citizens of this country ever will. I've seen a great many Arabs risk their lives for us. I have nothing but respect for the Arab people. However I do hate Al'Qaeda, and one of the main reasons I hate them is how many Arabs they slaughter every day. I oppose intervention in Syria because it supports Al'Qaeda.

That would translate as war if a Republican were in the White House, no war if a Dem.

What was the public opinion of war in Iraq on March 20th, 2003? I forgot. So Ihttp://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ looked it up. 70 something percent for, 20 something against. Further, George Bush had congressional approval. Those are facts.

The majority of WHO are for WHAT, exactly?

Well we know that in your book, nobody in elected office is actually a progressive. But here's the short list.

Maxine Waters.

Waters was originally inclined to lean toward an attack on Syria after the Assad regime allegedly used chemical weapons on more than 1400 defenseless civilians. But now she said she wants all the facts to be in — first.

Go ahead and bomb Syria Mr. President, just do the diligence with me first.

Al Franken is psyched for it.

How many do you want me to name here?
























Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I know its because you really have a crush on me. Its a little creepy but I can deal with it."

No, what's really creepy is that it crossed your mind.

What's the matter, ya' miss your military foxhole buddies? ;-)


"Yes, its all an evil conspiracy to [blah blah blah blah, blah]"

No, the conspiracy is to promote and sustain corporatism and the corporate-state.


"No, its probably because every time you elect someone, you kick them out of the movement for not being pure enough."

As already mentioned, I haven't contributed to the election of any corporatist...unlike you.


"We're the ones preaching freedom, as in drastically fewer rules. That's what freedom is, absence of rules. We're not anarchists, we like a few rules, but not many."

Yes, as in freedom for multinational corporations to pollute at will?

Sorry, to have civilization requires rules and cooperation, and dominance by individuals only -- not the created legal-fictions of corporations.

So, you like some rules, eh? They wouldn't, by chance, be the rules that allow corporations to have the same Constitutional rights as people, would they?


"...gay marriage and abortion (the only freedoms you folks seem to like)..."

You've never seen me write anything about gay marriage or abortion. If it hasn't occurred to you, I'm focused on one central and all-encompassing topic. Have you figured out what it is yet? Or, is it too much to fit in your head along with all your libertarian talking-points?


"So you voted for the billionaire, yet the eye doctor from Texas isn't okay."

Sure! Proves I'm not biased against rich people!


"Libertarians are the real liberals."

A little Labor Day weekend tomfoolery, I see. Only on Superman's Bizarro World...

This was from Dave Dubya: "Corporations are under no obligation to respect or enforce rights. What happens when a weakened, corporate dominated government cannot enforce judgment against corporate malfeasance and injury to citizens?"

Free0352, I noticed you still haven't answered the question.


"Too busy prattling on about some false concept of economic justice while the real patriots do the dirty work."

You're my hero! [sigh]

Like I said, once libertarianism renounces corporate personhood and the Corporate-State, I'll be on-board. But not a minute before.


"Perhaps this is why the progressive movement is nigh extinct according to you and Jeff?"

Well, no, actually it's according to Chris Hedges.

free0352 said...

Free0352, I noticed you still haven't answered the question

Okay, I'll answer it. Libertarians believe in law and order. Your local courts have their local sheriff's department, your state courts have your state police, and the federal courts have the US Marshall's Service, and if that doesn't work, there is always the National Guard and even federal troops. Not to mention the entire Justice Department.

I think they've got it covered. And Libertarians don't want to get rid of any of these things. The idea that some company would confront the US Government by force of arms is ridiculous.

You're my hero!

Thank Justin Amash.

"Perhaps this is why the progressive movement is nigh extinct according to you and Jeff?"

You said it-

The demise of progressivism ("liberalism") has been inversely proportional to the growth of corporatism

I was simply operating on the premise you were correct that progressivism was suffering a demise.







Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I think they've got it covered."

I guess that explains why so many Wall Street bankers are currently awaiting trial for the Great Recession they perpetrated upon the American people in 2008 (and lasting through today).


"Thank Justin Amash"

When he speaks out against the unconstitutionality of corporate personhood, I certainly will.


"I was simply operating on the premise you were correct that progressivism was suffering a demise."

It always has in history -- during the growth of fascist-style demagoguery times. It always comes back, though, because in the end, truth and justice and democracy always seem to prevail.

These are definitely dark times. Your cause is adding fuel to the fire when you support corporatism and corporate personhood as a legal structure.

Dave Dubya said...

So I asked:

"The majority of WHO are for WHAT, exactly? And you pulled this "fact" from what orifice?"

OK, we'll take "2" as your "majority" of progressives for war in Syria. Pelosi being more corporatist than most.

We've tried your way for half a century. That's a fact. Would you say its worked?

Here's what didn't work for millions. Slavery. Here's what else didn't work. Blacks were refused medical care at all white hospitals...and died. No biggie, right? Let the "free market" teach those racists.

"But I use my limited free speech"

Please expound. What is limiting your free speech?

Corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ v my .02

What was the public opinion of war in Iraq on March 20th, 2003? I forgot.

Well I didn't forget. First thing was to silence dissent. Donahue's ratings were up when his show was cancelled.

Before your Decider and his Big Dick used the corporate media for their propaganda, most Americans didn't buy into the war mongering. AFTER they "catapulted the propaganda, (A Bush term, even) MOST Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11. Like Palin. Really. You didn't look that part up, did you?

"Ignorance is strength", indeed.

Add, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

You talk freedom, yet served and continue to serve, your Orwellian leaders, chum.

JG,
Another truth Free can't confront is, "we the people, not the Kochs and Pauls have done the real work in reforming the stupid corporatist drug war."

People are progressive. Politicians are bought. Free can't tell the difference.





Jerry Critter said...

Free can be bought. As I recall from a much earlier post, he has said that he would work for the highest bidder. He is a true corporatist at heart.

free0352 said...

Jeff,

I guess that explains why so many Wall Street bankers are currently awaiting trial for the Great Recession they perpetrated upon the American people in 2008

Yeah we don't make laws and then retroactively prosecute people for violating them. Anyway, last I checked making horrible business decisions isn't a criminal offense. I know you want to round up all those evil rich and put them in the box cars, but we all know it ain't gonna happen.

Dave,

Pelosi being more corporatist than most

Um, I named Al Franken and Maxine Waters. But by most people's standards Pelosi is a progressive... not in your pristine purity standards, but we're talking about most people. So yeah, thats another one. I could go on, but linking half the progressive caucus is time consuming.

Let the "free market" teach those racists

Damn right. It would work better.

Corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ v my .02

Taking away someone elses well funded free speech does not increase your poor free speech. In fact, it decreases it. Nor is their well funded speech taking away any of yours.

Donahue's ratings were up when his show was cancelled.

Because the ratings of a washed up talk show host are the final barometer of public opinion. I think I'll go with the Pew poll I linked.

Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11

Please link to a quote where GWB or anyone really from the administration suggested Saddam Hussein perpetrated 9-11.

Jerry

As I recall from a much earlier post, he has said that he would work for the highest bidder. He is a true corporatist at heart.

So when you're offered a job, you always pick the one that pays the least, right? Damn right I like to get paid for my work, and so do you. Who are you kidding?

















Dave Dubya said...

Everyone left of Cheney is a progressive to you. So?

Like I told you, polls changed after the lies and propaganda. News to you? Seems to be. You never absorb a single fact that doesn't fit your belief system.

So does that Pew Poll show us those 'nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and Saddam's "links" to AQ?

Did Bush/Cheney ever say that Iraq was "training" AQ in "chemicals" and "deadly gasses"? Did Bush/Cheney ever say that AQ and Iraq were meeting in Prague? Did Bush/Cheney ever say that Saddam had "ties" and "connections" to AQ?

Why, as a matter of fact, Yes, yes, yes and yes.

You're one to lecture about duped progressives alright.

Dave Dubya said...

Corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ v my .02

You of course mean, Taking away someone elses well funded "Collective" corporate free speech does not increase your poor free speech.

Talk to Ayn.


free0352 said...

Everyone left of Cheney is a progressive to you. So?

Ah projection at its best. I know the difference between the blue dog, union liberals, and progressive wings of the Democrat Party.

So does that Pew Poll show us those 'nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and Saddam's "links" to AQ?

They didn't ask that question, no.

Talk to Ayn.

Ayn would tell me to think for myself. You should try it.



free0352 said...

Here is another Progressive for going to war with Syria over WMD.

Like I said, linking the entire Progressive caucus would be time consuming. I'll just post them here as I happen upon these stories.

I know you need your facts.

free0352 said...

More facts.

Dave Dubya said...

No need to show spineless Dems getting in line behind Obama. In DC, loyalty to party, and empire, is always stronger than loyalty to country. Hell, we saw way too many dems fall in line behind Bush, even. But more dems did vote no than yes for Bush's war of choice.

If a Republican were in the White House, and wanted war, we'd see near total support from the GOP as well. There would inevitably be war. They are far more in lockstep. Good for the party, bad for America.





Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Yeah we don't make laws and then retroactively prosecute people for violating them."

Irrespective of laws made after 2008, there was criminal activity up until that time -- just a lack of effort in discovering it and prosecuting it. There was a total lack of due diligence, and the government made a show of it by going after some low-level Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers (just as it went after low-levels at Abu Ghraib), which completely fell on its face -- as expected. They didn't aim high enough (no surprise there). As usual, they protected their partners-in-crime through lack of effort.

When CDOs are sold world-wide as a lucrative investment vehicle, while at the same time those same financial institutions are taking short positions on those same CDOs, then, yes, I'd say there was deliberate fraud taking place.


"Anyway, last I checked making horrible business decisions isn't a criminal offense.

No, it isn't, unless it involves deliberate fraud -- which is considered criminal activity. Well, unless you're a senior level executive with a "too big to fail" investment bank, obviously.


"I know you want to round up all those evil rich and put them in the box cars, but we all know it ain't gonna happen."

Only after they're prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which, you're right, "ain't gonna happen".

But when the next derivative collapse happens -- and it will -- those bankers will be pulled from their hiding places and hung from the strongest trees, for the anguish and pain and suffering they caused then -- and after the next one. They will not get away a second time. That's a certainty.

Dave Dubya said...

They will not get away a second time. That's a certainty.

I so wish I could agree...

free0352 said...

Dave,

No need to show spineless Dems

No, no. I showed PROGRESSIVES. If I'd have just picked on dems, that list would be so long I'd crash this blog linking them all.

In DC, loyalty to party, and empire, is always stronger than loyalty to country.

Agreed. Progressives, by and large, are far more loyal to power than they are to principles, of which it seems Progressives have fewer and fewer of every day. Or as in my contention, never had any fuck'n principles to begin with! It was aaaaaal for show. All the antiwar protests during the Bush administration had nothing to do with war. It was all about Bush. After all, where is the anti-war left now? Its fuck'n crickets on the Washington mall now? They had what? Seven decrepit 1960s survivors come to Kerry's townhouse in Boston? Where are the hundreds of thousands of sign toting activists we saw in 2003-2004? I'll tell ya? Sitting at home in front of their TVs screaming bomb Syria! Or if not, at the very least shutting up and just going with it, because its their guy doing the bombing this time. And this time for a cause that has a much worse case than Colin Powell had. The truth is, it was all an illusion, it was all political theater. You guys just missed the memo.

If a Republican were in the White House, and wanted war, we'd see near total support from the GOP

You are seeing it from the GOP now? The only reason McCain said he didn't support it was to win more aggressive action, not because he's against attacking Syria. The only members of the GOP who are out against this are people like Rand Paul and Justin Amash - the Libertarians. They're actually more anti-war than I am. But you still won't support them, out of some misguided notion of social justice.











free0352 said...

When CDOs are sold world-wide as a lucrative investment vehicle, while at the same time those same financial institutions are taking short positions on those same CDOs, then, yes, I'd say there was deliberate fraud taking place

You would, but the SEC and the law did not. You can't go back and with 20/20 hindsight prosecute people for making bad decisions.

Well, unless you're a senior level executive with a "too big to fail" investment bank, obviously.

You're preaching to the choir here. The bailouts weren't criminal, but they should have been. Laws should have been passed against them after the S&L bailouts during the 80s. No company for any reason should get a bailout... ever. They have bankruptcy court, that's the best they'd get in the Libertarian model.

But when the next derivative collapse happens -- and it will -- those bankers will be pulled from their hiding places and hung from the strongest trees,

That's nonsense and if you don't know that, you are an idiot. I know its the communist dream, but that dream is dead here. You want to know why? Because when you show up with your pitchfork and your torches a very well trained person is going to shoot you. Dead. And you can skip the diatribe about corporate power. Its all crap. It has nothing to do with money. If some neo Nazi skin heads try to the same game on a poor black family, you'd get the same results. It has nothing to do with your wallet. America doesn't like mobs. We shoot mobs here. Last big angry mob we've ever had here was the LA Riots, and they sent in the Marines. They killed a tiny handful of rioters and that was that. The biggest mob ever was the NY Draft Riots during the 1860s. The Navy shelled the town and the Army cleared what was left. You're dream of lynch mobbing rich people is dead on arrival.









Dave Dubya said...

Progressives, by and large, are far more loyal to power than they are to principles

Your cherry picked “progressives” from your extremely generalized accusation are just like everyone else loyal to power. There are dupes to power all over the place. All the corpo-dems serve the MIC. Most members of both parties owe fealty to Right Wing Israeli interests.

No matter how you slice it, the cons are even more in favor of war. That is simply a fact.

One...More. ...Time. ...

Progressives are NOWHERE near as lock step as you Righties were behind the Bush/Cheney war mongering lies. On that “loyalty to power” claim, compare FAIR’s reaction to Syria, to FOX(R)’s regarding Iraq. Go ahead, I dare you. Let us know who the cheerleaders for war really are.

Where are the hundreds of thousands of sign toting activists we saw in 2003-2004?

They learned the corporate media would mock them, or have no interest in covering their demonstrations.

And you’d be embarrassed to admit there are many more progressives opposed to aggression in both Iraq and Syria. A lot of us are consistent on the Empire’s militarism. You can’t see that, of course. Your narrow mental frame of liberals must lump them all together.

nothing to do with war. It was all about Bush. LOL!! Right, Rush. Good one!

So, what exactly is it “about Bush” are we talking about?

“Nukular” tubes?

Saddam’s ties to al-Qaeda, teaching them about chemicals and “deadly gasses”?

How about “biological labs”?

I know, I know! Unmanned aerial drones!

Wait I got it, that Iraqi meeting with AQ in Prague that Dick said was “pretty much confirmed”.

Do you mean THAT kind of “about Bush”? His lies and lust for his war. That would make it about war though, wouldn't it, Sherlock?

So, this takes us back to the topic.

Our puny individual rights of free speech are once again shouted down by the collective rights of corporate media, the military industrial complex, AIPAC, Banks, Big Oil, (Ever wonder if a pipeline may be a factor in Syria?) and other sources of Big Money "free speech".




free0352 said...

All the corpo-dems serve the MIC

Maxine Waters? LOL. You know her, she's a regular warmonger.

Progressives are NOWHERE near as lock step as you Righties were behind the Bush/Cheney war mongering lies

Libertarians aren't on your right/left paradigm. The "either or choice" is for kids. Its a spectrum.

And you’d be embarrassed to admit there are many more progressives opposed to aggression in both Iraq and Syria.

Name one Libertarian that is for bombing Syria.

I named plenty of progressives... oh wait, Maxine Waters is a neocon now **rolling eyes**






Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "No, no. I showed PROGRESSIVES. If I'd have just picked on dems, that list would be so long I'd crash this blog linking them all."

and...

"Maxine Waters? LOL. You know her, she's a regular warmonger."

LOL! That's funny! Listen, Maxine Waters doesn't even come close to sharing my progressive views. If she did, I'd make a point of listening to her, or reading what she has to say. But, I don't. She's a loyal Obamabot. She said it herself.

The ones that are true progressives you can count on one hand...and have a few fingers left over. Two that come to mind right off the bat: Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson. Raúl Grijalva shows promise, but the jury's still out. Any others that form the so-called "Progressive Caucus" are in-name only. It's a joke.

Like Dave mentioned, yeah, they're Democrats! Big deal! They may as well hang signs around their necks that say "Corporatist Party -- Democratic Wing".


"You would, but the SEC and the law did not. You can't go back and with 20/20 hindsight prosecute people for making bad decisions."

The SEC is just another so-called regulatory arm that's controlled by the industries it's mandated to monitor. It's a joke. I have personal experience dealing with that agency. I had written proof of malfeasance and fraud. I may as well have thrown it into a bottomless pit.

Look back at what I previously had written. These weren't just "bad business decisions". It was fraud. If you would have kept up with the specifics about it, you'd be in agreement. There's no doubt that Justice backed away. And why wouldn't they? We live under a Corporate-State, remember?


Dave Dubya: "I so wish I could agree..."

I was basing my assumption on total economic collapse, followed by total anarchy -- which the next derivative collapse most surely will set into motion. The Corporate-State will be a failed state. There probably won't be too many currently in power who won't ultimately be found hanging from a tree. Mob rule, despite what Tool-Boy claims, will be the order of the day.

One last word for Free0352:

It's obvious that you sit on this site as some sort of recruiter for libertarianism. Like I said before, I'm totally with you on social issues. But, until your party's philosophy includes language that denounces corporate-personhood, and the prevailing Corporate-State paradigm, you're just pissin' in the wind.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Libertarians aren't on your right/left paradigm. The 'either or choice' is for kids. Its a spectrum."

Libertarians making inane graphs to recruit and propagandize is for kids, too! How convenient to preset the parameters of the X and Y axises in order to back into the answers you're looking for. ;-)

Despite answering the "economic questions" referring to the virtues of multinational corporations as a resounding "absolutely ______", depending upon wording syntax, it labeled me as more of a communist than Stalin himself.

How convenient of your movement -- more bullshit from the party that heaps it the highest! Listen, it was fun, though.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thanks for the political compass link.

Good stuff there.

Like these quotes:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours" - Colin Powell, on Saddam, in February 2001

"We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"- Condoleezza Rice, on Saddam, in July 2001

Who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have "generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public" - Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations


Who declared homosexuality to be "immoral and disgusting"? - Ayn Rand, at her Ford Hall appearance, 1971

Dave Dubya said...

More thanks to Free for the cool stuff. I especially like the debunking of the "Hitler was a socialist" crap that Free put out.

From the FAQ’s at Political Compass:

You can't be libertarian and left wing

This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism.
Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.

The assumption that economic deregulation inevitably delivers more social freedom is flawed.

Our point is that a regulated economy and a strong public sector are not necessarily authoritarian, and a deregulated economy with a minimal public sector is not necessarily socially libertarian.

Where are the right-wing social libertarians on the international chart?

It's a good question, and we'd like to include some, but we haven't found any among the biggest internationally-known players.

Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cozy relationship between German corporations and the Reich... Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles, the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

(In my attempt at suggesting sanity to Free I used North Korea's name of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea.)

Dave Dubya said...

But wait, there's more:


You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology — deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes.

Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.

Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.

Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.

Most governments and political figures are plotted on the right. Doesn't that mean that your centre is misplaced.

The Political Compass chart represents the whole spectrum of political opinion, not simply the range within a particular nation or region. The timeless universal centre should not be confused with merely the present national average. The former is far more meaningful and informative. Where, for example, would the centre be within the political confines of Hitler's Germany, apartheid South Africa or the Soviet Union? By showing the whole spectrum of political thought, we can indicate the width or narrowness of prevailing mainstream politics within any particular country. It also enables us to chart

Dave Dubya said...

Here’s a look at how a real progressive thinks about Syria.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

That is basically the economic system supported by Libertarianism. As for the "American" definition of liberalism... it is what Europeans would call "socialism." Progressivism is what Europeans would call "communist," or "green" which is another way of saying "We aren't Red, we're GREEN. Its kinder and gentler communism without the gulags!"

Socialism and capitalism are not political systems, they are economic systems. Right/Left means basically nothing. Its a false choice - one actually developed by Hitler. Hitler got Germany to chose Nazism by presenting the German people with a choice, the "left" of Communism or the "right" of fascism. That's as I said, is a false choice and its a false choice when you offer it just as it was when Adolph presented it. The truth is there is liberty and authority. There is freedom and there are rules.

Whose movement is the one for all the rules again? Yours I believe. I don't think I can recall you Dave, on this blog not wanting to regulate something. Ever. That makes you a typical "progressive."

Socialist/green/communist/progressive/whatever the fuck you're calling it this week movement is more "authoritarian" than say... Libertarianism. As to government making the rules and enforcing them. Progressives love their rules. Lots and lots of them. They make us all so much more free you know...

You keep using that word - authoritarian... you've used it in past posts. I don't think it means what you think it means. When it comes to authoritarianism, you folks are big fans.

Dave Dubya said...

"We aren't Red, we're GREEN. Its kinder and gentler communism without the gulags!"

Thanks, Rush.

The truth is there is liberty and authority. There is freedom and there are rules.

More false choices. One could just as easily say, "There is chaos and there are rules". In fact, the Constitution lays out rules providing for freedom.

Here's an extension of that simplistic line of thinking, "There is freedom and there are laws".

Your black and white vision is inadequate to lecture us on the colorful continuum of reality.

"Hitler gave Germans a choice". LOL!

Dave Dubya said...


Who needs rules when we can have contaminated meat?

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
I'd like to thank Free for one more item from Political Compass.

Notice the placement of Obama on the Right Wing authoritarian quadrant. He's no progressive. Not even a leftist. Nope. Hanging out with the Republican Party and other authoritarians.

Exactly where we've been saying he was all along.



free0352 said...

There is chaos and there are rules

That is a true statement, which is why Libertarians are not Anarchists.

But we're talking, when we talk about progressivism, about a lot more than the handful of rules laid out in the Constitution We're talking about an avalanche of regulation. Progressivism seeks to control every aspect of daily life, and the economy.

Hitler gave Germans a choice

Sure. There were a lot more Germans than there were of Adolph Hitler, or card carrying Nazis for that matter. Most Germans chose Hitler because they believed without the Nazis there would be communism in Germany. Thats why they said they did it.

Exactly where we've been saying he was all along

If you mean Authoritarian, of course that's where Obama... and Progressives belong.




Dave Dubya said...

There is chaos and there are rules

That is a true statement, which is why Libertarians are not Anarchists.


Neither are progressives. Glad we both agree we need rules. Now about that pesky Constitution and regulation of commerce...

I bet you didn't bother to read that article on contaminated meat.

They way you whine and sob about the poor oppressed elites one would think they are suffering the worst oppression ever. Nope. Corporate profits are WAAAAAY up.

Wages...well who cares, right?

Most Germans chose Hitler because they believed without the Nazis there would be communism in Germany. Thats why they said they did it.

You really need to avoid lecturing on history. Hitler never got over 37% of any vote. He bullied and threatened his way to being appointed Chancellor and seized power.

If you mean Authoritarian, of course that's where Obama... and Progressives belong.

Don't you read anything you link to? Obama is exactly where a manager of a corporatist empire would be. Go check where Obama is.

Then check where Ghandi, a real progressive, is. In the same quadrant as I am.

Why not do that for us? But you may not like what you see. Go to the FAQ's and see why Americans complain and get it so wrong. "Why is Obama on the Right, when he's a Leftist?"

That would include you.





free0352 said...

Now about that pesky Constitution and regulation of commerce...

How is an income tax regulation of commerce? What does the clean air act have to do with commerce? What does OSHA have to do with commerce?

Get it?

I bet you didn't bother to read that article on contaminated meat.

Nope. I don't care. What does the federal government have to do with meat?

Hitler never got over 37% of any vote.

You're telling me, one guy.... ONE GUY was able to bully millions. That's laughable. The German people chose Hitler in their hearts, in overwhelming numbers. That is obvious because they fought to the death for him even after the war was obviously lost. They did it out of love for Hitler.

As for corporate profits, they are issuing more dividends - or profits. However, corporate revenue is actually down. Why do you think that is? Normally companies reinvest some profits, but recently they have done this less and less. In your economic genius, tell us why revenue is down and yet profits are up?

As for Obama, if you're trying to tell me he says one thing yet does another... that's what I've been telling you all along jackass.

The progressives HAVE TRICKED YOU into thinking they are something they aren't.

Progressive doesn't mean what you think it means. You think it means socialism, it really means raw power of the state for the benefit of elites. Elites for whom a free market just gets in the way of their government sponsored monopolies. Monopolies you cheer on.

Dave Dubya said...

Regulation of commerce is only one point. Taxes are another, and general welfare covers our air.

Got it?

So let's get this too. The guy who willfully chooses ignorance, refuses to read links he's posted, is telling me I've been tricked? LOL!!

No wonder you always need to make up your own definitions. It is, after all, the "Right" thing to do.

Thanks, Rush.

Dave Dubya said...

Corporate revenues down are they? So are our wages. Think there's a connection?

free0352 said...

Corporate revenues down are they? So are our wages. Think there's a connection?

Depends on how you define wages. If you adjust for inflation, the kid working the fryer at McDonalds makes what he made 30 years ago. Same for the assistant shift manager at the freight company. The wages that are down, are average wages. That's to be expected after a recession, as those who lost jobs start new ones at the bottom of their new totem polls.

Yet you didn't really answer the question. You can see that corporate revenues are down, yet they are issuing more dividend checks worth more than when revenues were higher. Why do you think that is? Wages may be on average lower, but why no reinvestment?

free0352 said...

The program allows meat producers to increase the speed of processing lines by as much as 20 percent and cuts the number of USDA safety inspectors at each plant in half,

So don't buy meat there anymore. Then you will have zero cases of contaminated meat from that sector.
Amazingly the USDA didn't start inspecting meat till the 1930s, and prior to that by some magical miracle people got along just fine without it... in a time of much less refrigeration no less! And after it people still got and get food poisoning. Its a service that has no need, for great cost, with little benefit to anyone and in fact hurts them with increased food prices.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Another thing about your link, I couldn't find one statistic of anyone who actually got sick. Just statistics of how much meat didn't meet the regulators "criteria."

I'm not exactly a farmer, what does that even mean? Sounds bad, but with no actually sick people... I have to wonder just how bad it really was.

Your article harps on Australian meat like it was coated in Anthrax. But are Australians dying of dysentery or e-coli poisoning in droves? Did I miss the mass Aussy meat plague? No. The Australians are doing fine. So are the Kiwis in New Zealand, the "worst" according to your article. I've never been to NZ, but I have been to Australia, and I didn't see or experience one instance of food poisoning. I couldn't find any articles talking about any meat-caused epidemics. I live pretty close to Canada, another country that took a hit in your article, and Canadians aren't crawling across the border to buy pork and beef the way they're coming here to get health care because their socialized system failed them.

So if anything, your article proves my point.

The regulation is over blown.

Dave Dubya said...

Annual number of food related illnesses in the US 76 Million
Annual number of food related hospitalizations in the US 325,000
Annual number of food related deaths in the US 5.000
Number of annual deaths due to Salmonella, Listeria, and Toxoplasma 1,800
Number of annual deaths due to unknown agents 3,200

free0352 said...

Your numbers mean nothing. Most of those food related illnesses got that way from their own kitchen counters. Now contrast those numbers per capita with Australia, Canada, New Zealand - bet'cha anything there is almost no difference. And those are the very countries your article held as an example of what not to do.

free0352 said...

Fact is, way more Americans die every year from eating fast food and having heart attacks as a result of their own fat asses.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "I'd like to thank Free for one more item from Political Compass. Notice the placement of Obama on the Right Wing authoritarian quadrant. He's no progressive. Not even a leftist. Nope. Hanging out with the Republican Party and other authoritarians. Exactly where we've been saying he was all along."

Obviously, Tool-Boy doesn't read what he points us toward. I also notice that he will not reply to your comment(s).

Caught him in a lie...again!

Dave Dubya said...

Your numbers mean nothing. Most of those food related illnesses got that way from their own kitchen counters.

Therefore we have no need for commercial food safety inspections?

Right.



Dave Dubya said...


If you adjust for inflation, the kid working the fryer at McDonalds makes what he made 30 years ago.


Well, no, of course.

If you adjust for inflation, the kid working the fryer at McDonalds, does NOT make what he made 30 years ago.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first created the minimum wage in 1938, it was 25 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.07 today. The minimum wage had its lowest buying power in 1948, when it was worth about $3.81 in today's dollars. It had its highest buying power in 1968, when it was worth about $10.56. At $7.25 in 2012, our current minimum wage is in the middle of those two extremes.

It really is so much easier making up BS to support one’s beliefs than to learn the truth, isn’t it?

And according to Free and his masters, they’re making too much money. Corporations like McDonalds and Walmart should be allowed to pay a buck a day if they can get away with it.

Economic slavery is of no concern to certain “libertarians”. That would require a conscience. There’s your clear difference between economic libertarians and progressive social libertarians.

free0352 said...

Therefore we have no need for commercial food safety inspections?

How would those inspections make any difference in the home? That's where most people get food poisoning. Or do you want to inspect people's homes now? I can't figure out which you want - and progressives supporting pointless inspections or invading homes... neither would surprise me. After all, the main mission of Progressivism is to "protect" people from themselves.

Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.07 today

What? Your own link clearly says minimum wage is comparable to what I said. On average its basically the same. Your own link clearly says the highest it was ever worth was 10.00 (which BTW flies in the face of almost all records) and as low as 4. Today its 7 and change in most states. Basically unchanged in value.

Corporations like McDonalds and Walmart should be allowed to pay a buck a day if they can get away with it.

Actually I think McD should replace them with robots, which don't have to be paid at all. If fast food employees want to make 15.00 an hour, they should acquire the skills and a job worth that. Not complain for it. I own stock in McD and I write the board all the time requesting they replace a sizeable portion of the workforce with machines.



Dave Dubya said...


How would those inspections make any difference in the home?

Are you really that dense? Or just desperate to disagree?

After all, the main mission of Progressivism is to "protect" people from themselves.

Getting thicker...

Your own link clearly says minimum wage is comparable to what I said.

Looking quite dense, now.

Actually I think McD should replace them with robots,

Thick as a brick. Congratulations.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Or just desperate to disagree?

Well guy... you said more people in America are getting sick as the USDA relaxes regulations.

Thats flat not true

"Fewer people are getting sick from the foods that they eat" says Dr. Chris Braden, the CDC’s Acting Director for the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases."

This is what I mean, when I say you spout mistruths and falsehoods. This is another example. I know you need your facts Dave. As regulation is relaxing, fewer people are getting sick.

In fact, your regulations cause more problems, as meat has to sit still on conveyor belts for hours waiting for inspection, spoiling.

As for people who do get food borne illness, its not from the food. We cook our food, which kills most if not all parasites if done correctly. What gives people disease, are the germs living on your kitchen counter, your silverware, and your plate.

Just like you are most likely to suffer an accident in your home than anywhere else, your house is also the most likely to get you sick or food poisoning.

Not using kitchen sponges, cleaning your kitchen with bleach and your dishes thoroughly, and properly cooking food would eliminate the majority of these cases. Your inspections do nothing but raise costs, making it harder for poor people to buy food. Another reason why progressivism and do-gooder liberalism is a curse to the poor.

As for robots at McD's, why not? If they can weld together a car, I don't think a big mac would be that challenging for programmers? You don't notice too many wagon wheel makers or blacksmiths in your town do you? Technology evolves, efficiency increases, and people have to find new jobs. Just because we don't see any more town tanneries, blacksmiths or millers doesn't mean those people starved to death. They learned new skills and moved on. Robots at McD's would mean cheaper prices for customers and better efficiency for managers, and more profits for stockholders. As for the people who lose the 7.00 an hour gig, that job is meant for high school children and fixed income seniors to work part time for extra cash. It isn't meant to make a living on. The problem is workers are now demanding to make a living on it. If the only job skills you have at 30 are flipping burgers, you deserve your fate. It isn't McD's fault your life sucks. Its your fault. They can strike all they want, R2D2 will have their jobs in a few years, and maybe then they'll wake up to the fact they'll need to get some skills together if they ever want to earn a living.

Dave Dubya said...

Now there you go again. Every time you say "You said", I never really said. you said more people in America are getting sick as the USDA relaxes regulations.

Desperate to disagree, it is. And pulling stuff from that orifice continues: regulations cause more problems, as meat has to sit still on conveyor belts for hours waiting for inspection, spoiling.

BS literally contaminates meat AND your mind.

Your linked article also states:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which, along with the Department of Agriculture, is responsible for keeping the food supply safe says the CDC reports emphasizes the magnitude of foodborne illness in this country and the need for more to be done.

And we get it. You oppose food safety inspections. It is your fringe ideology.

But never mind all this distraction. Why don't you to defend corporations' collective rights? Or do you agree with me and Rand on this one? LOL!

Dave Dubya said...

It isn't meant to make a living on. The problem is workers are now demanding to make a living on it.

Oh, THAT's the problem, is it? Nothing to do with corporate off-shoring of all those "make a living" jobs?

You're telling us the corporate re-definition of what a job means. Just like a corporate tool would do.

Let's bring back the good old days of sweat shops, child labor, six-day work weeks, 12 hour days, company stores, company towns, and Robber Barons.

Neo-feudal economic slavery of the masses is what your fringe corporatist McJobs ideology would bring. Well, not "would", it IS happening as we speak. Your corporate-run brave new world has arrived. And it won't get any prettier. Especially as long as your cult wants those corporations to have the power of collective rights in our elections and government.

Yeah, that'll fix things real good.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

The fact is, that as regulations are relaxed fewer people are getting sick. That is a fact Dave.

As for Robots and McDonalds, you didn't even address it. You just went berserk on some socialist rant. Yawn.

Jobs are set up by companies. They aren't for the benefit of workers. They exist only to help stockholders make money. You get paid, for work. If you don't make the company money... you won't keep your job. Its that simple. If you don't like the job the company is offering... don't work there. Its that simple. This isn't complicated.

The problem with Progressives, is you think you're entitled to jobs. You are not.

You have to earn them.

You're right about one thing, jobs are going overseas and they'll keep going over seas till government changes its tune. Because Progressives like you piss job creators off by taxing them and regulating them they are going to leave. You have zero solution for this problem while we're on the subject. We've had this discussion before. You can call them greedy America hating mean meanies all you want. They don't care.

They are going to leave faster and faster as Progressives tighten the regulatory grip. And then who will pay the taxes that fund your prison? The poor? That's silly. You'll be out of work soon enough when your state lays off prison guards and releases a shit load of prisoners just like Michigan did when it drove its tax base out. Then they can come to your house looking for revenge, like they did to several guards here in Michigan.

So what is your big plan to keep that from happening? I'm curious, because from where I sit you don't seem to have one.

Dave Dubya said...


as regulations are relaxed fewer people are getting sick

And:

Progressives like you piss creators off by taxing them and regulating them they are going to leave.

LOL!! Wow, they're pissed off even when regulations are relaxed too.

Yup. Guess we just better hand everything over to them. Which is what collective corporate rights "free speech money" does.

So let's keep giving them everything they want, right? Then out of gratitude they'll stop corrupting our government and off-shoring jobs. LOL!!

You have zero solution for this problem while we're on the subject.

Not true. End corporate political person-hood and collective rights to interfere with and corrupt our elections and government.

Don't you worry about Michigan. The Koch's Republican puppets have attacked unions. Just look at all those good jobs popping up, eh?

Ahh,,err...well, the important thing is unions are being busted and the Kochs control the state government.

You can call them greedy America hating mean meanies all you want. They don't care.

You got that part right. So let's give more political power to those that don't care, right?

That should fix everything.




free0352 said...

Yup. Guess we just better hand everything over to them

How about just let them keep what was theirs in the first place.

So let's keep giving them everything they want, right?

See above answer.

Then out of gratitude they'll stop corrupting our government and off-shoring jobs.

Its about profitability. Its expensive to ship natural resources to China - which doesn't have many, and then ship finished goods to America, and then truck those goods all over the country. That is not a cheap endeavor. It wouldn't be terribly hard to lower over all tax rates while closing the preferred treatment some elite companies get. This would make it actually cheaper to do business here.

End corporate political person-hood and collective rights to interfere with and corrupt our elections and government.

Please expound on how this would prevent anyone from opening a factory in China?

Just look at all those good jobs popping up, eh?

Okay I will look at it. Its nice to see.

well, the important thing is unions are being busted and the Kochs control the state government.

Well it has attracted business to the state.

So let's give more political power to those that don't care, right?

Nah, just leave them alone and stop punishing the people and companies who drive the economy.












free0352 said...

Fact is, in every single right to work state, the economy has grown, which is better for everyone. Now Michigan can finally be competitive with southern states.

Dave Dubya said...

Then out of gratitude they'll stop corrupting our government and off-shoring jobs.
Its about profitability.


Bingo! It’s more important for a CEO to make an extra billion than to keep Americans in jobs.

So let's give more political power to those that don't care, right?
Nah, just leave them alone


Leave them along to write legislation, regulations and trade agreements? No, that’s corruption.

End corporate political person-hood and collective rights to interfere with and corrupt our elections and government.
Please expound


See above.

Economists say Michigan's economy is turning around for the fourth straight year in part because the housing sector is on the mend.

So the economy was turning around before the Koch/Snyder/Republican attack on unions? It was turning around under Granholm the democrat? Michigan made a mistake with Snyder. Just like voting for Republicans is almost always a mistake for the working class.

Fact is, in every single right to work state, the economy has grown, which is better for everyone. Now Michigan can finally be competitive with southern states.

No, the fact is “Michigan's economy is turning around for the fourth straight year” and that would include before the union busting. And the other fact is while the “economy is turning around” it’s not recovered.

A six-year recovery through 2015 will only replenish four of nine Michigan jobs lost between 2000 and 2010.

This is your Right Wing “recovery”: McJobs.

Those are what are replacing the good jobs. Jobs that would have provided a living. Instead we get a little “extra cash” for students and the elderly.

Thanks. That makes the off-shoring and financial collapse so much better for America. The America your heroes don’t care about.

Still waiting for your defense of corporate collective rights, "the replacement of “The Rights of Man” by “The Rights of Mob.”

Or does, "Leave them alone" cover it?

Say are CEO's "punished" as much as the off-shored laid off person who needs to feed a family with his new McJob?

Poor rich bastards. It’s a good thing they have their stooges defending them. Whatever would they do without you?

free0352 said...

Bingo! It’s more important for a CEO to make an extra billion than to keep Americans in jobs

They didn't get hired to lose money. What's wrong with profit?

Leave them along to write legislation, regulations and trade agreements?

I think I made it clear we'd leave regulation to tort law and legislation to nobody. We have enough laws.

Please expound.
See above


You didn't say anything accept profits being a bad thing. This always happens doesn't it? You have no idea who to keep companies here. You've got no clue, except to bitch about people making money... as if you don't.

That makes the off-shoring and financial collapse so much better for America

I think we'll be okay long term, but in the mean time you don't seem to have a solution other than to bitch, and moan that the rich won't take care of you. And if being taken care of by them is your goal, I don't think insulting them will get you far.

As for me, I don't need anyone else. I'll be just fine with or without those evil rich.

Whatever would they do without you?

I think they need me about as much as I need them.





Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I think I made it clear we'd leave regulation to tort law and legislation to nobody. We have enough laws."

Grandma's house in the country, all of a sudden, has natural gas and other carcinogenic compounds coming out of her water faucet due to, it's speculated, fracking in the area by, let's say, ExxonMobile.

So Grandma's only recourse will be to hire a two-bit lawyer to bring suit against one of the largest and most profitable multinational corporations, and its body of hundreds of the best corporate attorneys known to man?

How much of a chance does Grandma have to win this suit?

Think about it before you go off with your usual bullshit.


"I think we'll be okay long term, but in the mean time you don't seem to have a solution other than to bitch, and moan..."

You think we'll be okay?!? Well, sure, because there's no evidence, whatsoever, that classical libertarianism works outside of the theoretical and fictional writings of Ayn Rand.

I've already offered my solution, but you never commented: Return to limited corporate charters that were the norm prior to this country, and the first fifty years after founding. This is where your coveted libertarianism at least had a chance.

It would only made a horrible situation worse if we returned to it now. You deny the reality that libertarianism would only exacerbate an already monopolistic economic environment. Sure, the multinationals would love it!

You, and your fellow cult followers of that inane philosophy, fail to see the implications. I can't even begin to take you seriously.

Dave Dubya said...

You didn't say anything accept profits being a bad thing.

No, that is the imaginary straw man of me that exists only inside your head.

Here's what I really said:

Leave them alone to write legislation, regulations and trade agreements? No, that’s corruption.

End corporate political person-hood and collective rights to interfere with, and corrupt our elections and government.

And: It’s more important for a CEO to make an extra billion than to keep Americans in jobs.

Nothing is wrong with profit if it doesn't exploit human beings, pollute the environment, and corrupt our elections and government.

Go build more straw men, why dontcha?



free0352 said...

How much of a chance does Grandma have to win this suit?


People win suits like that all the time. Shit, people with way less of a case.

whatsoever, that classical libertarianism works outside of the theoretical and fictional writings of Ayn Rand.

Sure there is, this country.

Dave

Nothing is wrong with profit if it doesn't exploit human beings, pollute the environment, and corrupt our elections and government

Fine, that still doesn't explain how your going to stop anyone from opening a factory in China. You got a plan for that sport?







Dave Dubya said...

You got a plan for that sport?

Sure end their collective rights in our elections and public policy making. Stop letting them write trade agreements. Then tax the hell out of them when they try to flood the US with their Chinese products.

Any company that abandons American workers should be abandoned by America.

Why do corporations love commies more than America? Oh, yeah, it's that damn Constitutional taxes and regulation.

But they have tools like you who are happy with their pitting Chinese slave labor against American workers.

That ain't liberalism. It's called corporatism.

Be happy, your side is winning.

Too bad America is losing.

free0352 said...

Stop letting them write trade agreements. Then tax the hell out of them when they try to flood the US with their Chinese products

They did this on the state level in Detroit, didn't work out too well.

Dave Dubya said...


"State level in Detroit"?

That would be "city level", chum.

And no,states, let along cities, don't write international trade agreements.

But cheer up, so goes Detroit, so goes America under the boot heel of Corporatism.

So cheer up. Your side is winning their war against unions, American workers, and democracy itself.

All thanks to those corporate collective rights you champion.

free0352 said...

That would be "city level", chum.

I meant state level. And Michigan reaped the results of your policy.

no,states, let along cities, don't write international trade agreements

No, but they can drive business out. Business can leave with or without a treaty. And they left Michigan, and they're leaving the whole country now. And you can't stop them.

so goes Detroit, so goes America under the boot heel...

...Progressivism.

Your laws and regulations and taxes are making it more profitable to leave. And so they leave. Make it profitable to stay, they stay.

Its that simple.

The "elites" AKA rich people you need to take care of you Dave, won't be there for you. Guess you'll just have to take care of yourself. Oh... the horror.





Dave Dubya said...

Guess you'll just have to take care of yourself.

LOL! Says the tool of the elites.

I'm doing fine. YOU are depending on them.

It's called projection.

Dave Dubya said...

Your laws and regulations and taxes are making it more profitable to leave.

Projection on corporate behalf. The reality is not MY laws. THEY wrote the trade agreements, not me. They are writing their own regulations. THEY own the politicians who help them profit by abandoning America.

And YOU can't comprehend that basic truth.

Man, if I had the power you say I have...but 99% of the American people do not have the power the Kochs have.

And you can't comprehend that basic truth, either.

free0352 said...

YOU are depending on them

For what? I have a job that pays in the private sector just fine. I'd be endlessly happy if the government shut down. I don't need them.

They are writing their own regulations. THEY own the politicians who help them profit by abandoning America.

First, its a system you're arguing for... so its yours. Second, if they have such the hook up here, why do they leave? You're not making sense. Either they are leaving, or they aren't. If they have it soooooo great, why do they go?

And you can't comprehend that basic truth

What power or civil right did the Koch brothers take away from you specifically?


Dave Dubya said...

YOU are depending on them

For what? I have a job


Exactly! YOU work for them, you depend on your job. Or you're wealthy and doing it out of fanaticism. Simple.

"They are writing their own regulations. THEY own the politicians who help them profit by abandoning America".

Not sure about what doesn't make sense here...

First, its a system you're arguing for... so its yours.

Again, no. You're sounding delusional now. "Writing their own regulations and owning politicians" is NOT what I'm "arguing for".

Second, if they have such the hook up here, why do they leave? You're not making sense.

So, it's the Constitutional system of tax and regulation I'm arguing for, and you think YOU are making sense???

And of course, you can't comprehend the basic truth that the Koch brothers have more political power than me, or thousands of me's, even millions of me's.

The power to suppress unions is real, chum.

Amazing.

So again, cheer up, Your side is winning?

Why are you so miserable?







free0352 said...

Exactly! YOU work for them

THEM.

THEM

My company has well, well under the 500 employees that qualify for a small business. But if it all dries up tomorrow I'll be fine. I have skills. If I didn't have skills, I'd learn skills. Its not hard. Figure out what someone needs done and do that, then ask for money.

Now Dave - let me get what you're telling me straight.

Companies write all this legislation, over 4000 new rules each year, for their benefit. They love this control so much - that they are leaving the country in droves over it...

That don't make no sense.



Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, a “Small Business” in today’s corporatocracy is pretty big, as long as it is “not dominant in its field on a national basis”. In manufacturing they allow for a maximum number of employees that may range from 500 to 1500.
So if you’re not GM, GE, Dow Chemical, etc. you’re a “small business”.

Wonder who helped make that rule?

let me get what you're telling me straight.

Companies write all this legislation, over 4000 new rules each year, for their benefit. They love this control so much - that they are leaving the country in droves over it...


So that’s what you call getting it straight?

I told you corporations have a hand in writing trade agreements and other legislation. I gave a perfect example even. Their politicians push it through. Trade agreements and other de-regulation set the conditions for the off-shoring that suits their exclusive interests over those of the American people. Complicated? Maybe research should be one of those “skills” you should learn.

Disagree all you want. Distract all you want. The truth is there.

So when are you going to defend those collective rights of corporations? Still no word from you on the subject of my post.

Why’s that?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Your laws and regulations and taxes are making it more profitable to leave. And so they leave. Make it profitable to stay, they stay."

and...

"...if they have such the hook up here, why do they leave? You're not making sense. Either they are leaving, or they aren't. If they have it soooooo great, why do they go?

and...

"Your laws and regulations and taxes are making it more profitable to leave. And so they leave. Make it profitable to stay, they stay."

So, let them leave...but leave totally. Let them move their headquarters, everything, to Beijing, Madras, wherever...

Just quit hanging around having the best of both worlds.


"I'd be endlessly happy if the government shut down. I don't need them."

There goes your federal government pension check! Hmm, if it's not so important, please let me know which charity you've been donating that government money to.


"That don't make no sense."

No, your double negative "don't make sense".

free0352 said...

Dave,

Trade agreements and other de-regulation set the conditions for the off-shoring that suits their exclusive interests over those of the American people

So your plan is to cancel trade agreements, and cut off Asia, the largest market in the world. I wouldn't wait around for your economics prize. If you're so good at research, look up the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act to see where this hair brained scheme ends up.

The truth is there

The only truth here is some people don't learn from history. Last time someone tried your hair brained isolationism it helped cause the great depression.

Jeff

Let them move their headquarters, everything, to Beijing, Madras, wherever...

Many are doing just that. I know its a tough choice deciding which tax haven to live in, the Caribbean beaches of the Cayman Islands or the Alpine slopes of Lichtenstein or the Desert Metropolis that is Dubai - while the factories churn in Indonesia, China and India - but my guess is somehow the jet set figure it out.

Meanwhile, that will be that many more jobs over seas. Wave goodbye economy.


There goes your federal government pension check!


Yup. I don't care. No problem. If we can roll back the Federal Government, good riddance. As it stands now, if my income increases at the same rate it has this year in five years I'll quite nearly pay more in taxes than I get for that damned check.

please let me know which charity you've been donating that government money to.

All my income goes to the "Free0352 fund of what ever I want." You can feel free to donate.

No, your double negative "don't make sense".

Pretend you heard that in a very sarcastic hillbilly voice, because that's they way I intended you to hear it. As in, even the dumbest hillbilly on earth could see your lack of common sense.

















Dave Dubya said...

So your plan is to cancel trade agreements,

Who said that? Your must work at a straw man factory.

I told you my plan. You really don't read well. Let's add reading retention to research for your new skills goals.

And after you develop those skills read this again:

Distract all you want. The truth is there.

So when are you going to defend those collective rights of corporations? Still no word from you on the subject of my post.

Why’s that?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...while the factories churn in Indonesia, China and India - but my guess is somehow the jet set figure it out."

Agreed, they've already figured it out. You'll get no argument from me. I believe Dave and I have both agreed that your side has won. The side you prostitute for has managed to undermine democracy by supplanting corporate collective rights at the expense of individual rights. This we know for a fact.


Dave Dubya: "So when are you going to defend those collective rights of corporations? Still no word from you on the subject of my post. Why’s that?"

Because he conveniently avoids confronting the truth, even when it stares him in the face. He's never going to defend the collective rights of corporate entities, because to do so would fly-in-the-face of what his esteemed prophet has proclaimed. Despite his past denunciations of "collectivism", he's really a promoter of them. He's a staunch proponent of the legal fiction of corporate-personhood.

He's truly a tool; a propaganda tool for his perceived virtues of promoting a economic free-for-all at the expense of the environment and the health and well-being of every living creature on this earth.

"At the root of all their conceptual switches, there lies another, more fundamental one: the switch of the concept of rights from the individual to the collective—which means: the replacement of 'The Rights of Man' by 'The Rights of Mob.'"

free0352 said...

So when are you going to defend those collective rights of corporations?

Defending individual rights is all that is necessary. An individual has a right to join a group and organize. Be it a company or a union or pretty much any organization that isn't criminal in nature.

As for your plan, you've yet to explain how it will keep anyone from opening a factory in China. Where is your incentives for not doing that? All I'm seeing out of you is incentives for doing that.

Jeff,

Won what? The right to do business wherever they want? In a free society, you can presumably do that by default.

The truth is, you can't name one corporation that has ever forced you to do anything. In our society only government has the power of force, and its you fellas who are arguing to give it more power, and to maintain the power it already has.


Dave Dubya said...

OK, so we see Free tacitly supports collective rights of corporations.

Big surprise.

Dave Dubya said...

And let it therefor be proclaimed: Free is a collectivist corporatist.

And it is indeed his individual right to be one.

Jerry Critter said...

"An individual has a right to join a group and organize. Be it a company or a union or pretty much any organization that isn't criminal in nature."

That statement includes both corporations and government. So, Free is both a collectivist corporatist and a collectivist governmentalist. It sounds like Free is in favor of all forms of control, both individual and collective, that "isn't criminal in nature".

Talk about wanting it both ways!

free0352 said...

Of course people have a right to organize through government. Libertarians aren't anarchists.

What we oppose, is government's rights trumping the individual's rights. You can't name for me one way any private entity has taken away ONE of your rights.

I can name for you a quite a few ways government has done that.

And I certainly don't see how opening a factory in China and selling the goods in America violates your or anyone elses civil rights.

But Dave, if you want to champion civil rights, thats great. What a nice turn of events for you.

Dave Dubya said...

You can't name for me one way any private entity has taken away ONE of your rights.

Sure I can.

I would hope we citizens have a right to clean air, but...

Thanks to collective rights of corporations, we ALL breathe the air they pollute.

So much for individual rights to the air we breathe. Trumped by collective corporate rights to dump their crap in our air.

How about the rights of someone to have their water tap not be flammable? Trumped by collective corporate rights to dump their crap in the ground water.

Need more examples of our lives being negatively impacted by collective corporate rights?

Our rights to representation as "we the people" have become subservient to the "free speech money" and corruption by collective corporate rights.

But you can't see that, can you? Too busy supporting collective rights over individual rights. Some "libertarian".

Rights are not rights unless they are individual rights.







Dave Dubya said...

And let's not forget this one. How about the rights of homeowners to their property when a corporation tells the government they want the property. And then the corporation takes it by eminent domain?

See what happens when corporate power dominates government? Do you think smaller government and collective corporate rights will fix that? A libertarian dream. A nightmare for freedom and democracy.

Dave Dubya said...

Here's one for you. Our right to privacy in communications is trumped by collective corporate rights of telecoms to immunity for violating said rights, and handing the communications over to the NSA.

It's a nexus of corporate/government that violates of our rights. Collective rights of corporations once again trump individual rights.

Want more examples? I'm sure we can find them.

Now it's your turn to defend those collective corporate rights.





Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Won what?

Won what?! I thought my explanation was plain and straightforward enough. Let me copy and paste it for you: "The side you prostitute for has managed to undermine democracy by supplanting corporate collective rights at the expense of individual rights."


"The right to do business wherever they want?"

Yes, they certainly can "do business wherever they want." But their business ends with producing the products and services they provide (less externalities -- more on this down below). It doesn't include writing legislation and corrupting our democratic processes in the form of money that talks. Businesses, like all artificial or nonhuman entities, are not entitled to Constitutional protections or rights.


"The truth is, you can't name one corporation that has ever forced you to do anything."

No, the bigger truth is, I can name 100.

For commodities and products that are produced with externalities, your esteemed unregulated market wet-dream does not reflect the full social costs of the transactions. As Dave has already alluded, the cost of air pollution for the rest of society is not compensated for by the producers of the pollution. Those who suffer from these external costs do so involuntarily -- with time off from work, medical costs, pain and suffering, etc., resulting in higher premiums and/or higher taxes -- while those who benefit from these externalities, the polluting companies, do so at no cost.

So it's essentially a Catch-22, isn't it? We can eliminate all regulations and restrictions and hope these corporations choose to retain their polluting plants and factories within the United States...or we can penalize them for their misconduct (and sometimes criminal malfeasance) and they can relocate their plants and go pollute China, India, Indonesia, etc. (which they're doing), where they don't have (yet) the environmental restrictions and safe air and water standards that this country does.


"In our society only government has the power of force, and its you fellas who are arguing to give it more power, and to maintain the power it already has."

No, that's not true. I think the transition to the privatization of prisons is just one example of that, but I've digressed. The "power of force" isn't needed when you've got the power of speech in the form of money, the power of bribery of our governmental officials through lobbying, and the power of corruption when the needs of our citizenry is forsaken for the wants of multinational corporatism.

Neither I, nor Dave or Jerry, or anyone else who may be reading this blog, has ever advocated giving the government "more power". You, as I've learned is customary, have again confused taking power away from the Corporate-State and giving it back to "We, the People". It's really a simple concept, but for some reason you continue to prostitute yourself for corporate collective rule.

free0352 said...

Dave,

I would hope we citizens have a right to clean air

You seem to be confused about what your rights are. Here's a list. But while we're on the subject of clean air, the United States is the third largest country on Earth in terms of population. Ahead of us are India and then the largest, China. The largest by land mass I believe is still Russia. Out of those, guess who has the cleanest air? Of course, if you are unhappy with the current state of the air, move to Alaska. Very clean air up there.

Trumped by collective corporate rights to dump their crap in the ground water.

The quality of water in most other countries is actually quite worse. The fact is, the richer a country or even a neighborhood is, the cleaner it is. This would suggest that if you want a clean environment, you'd be concentrating on generating as much wealth as possible.

Our rights to representation as "we the people" have become subservient to the "free speech money" and corruption by collective corporate rights.

How many corporations voted in your last election, or any election? Please document how many times a corporation... any corporation, directly prevented you from voting.

How about the rights of homeowners to their property when a corporation tells the government they want the property. And then the corporation takes it by eminent domain?

I agree. That's terrible and Kelo vs New London was a horrible court decision. The suit was brought in a Connecticut Court by liberal Democrats and supported by liberal judges. Those being Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Libertarians have been at the forefront of getting this overturned or undermined. Liberals are no where to be found.

You're welcome.

Here's one for you. Our right to privacy in communications is trumped by collective corporate rights of telecoms to immunity for violating said rights, and handing the communications over to the NSA.

They were intimidated into doing so by the NSA,under threat from the very regulatory power you worship. And again Libertarians like Rand Paul and Justin Amash are at the forefront of the battle to stop the NSA.

Again, You're welcome.















Dave Dubya said...

Well, I'm glad I don't live in your narrow world of ten rights. They are the fundamental rights, but we also have a right to vote, to associate, to mobility, travel, breathe clean air, drink clean water, and a right to representation.

Ten rights are not enough, chum.

This would suggest that if you want a clean environment, you'd be concentrating on generating as much wealth as possible.

No.

If wealth sets the standard of clean air and water, why does Canada and Scandinavia have better air and water?

What a world. EVERYTHING to you is measured in dollar $ign$.

They were intimidated into doing so by the NSA,under threat from the very regulatory power you worship.

More BS. The NSA doesn't write regulations. And not all telecoms jumped on that bandwagon.

How many corporations voted in your last election, or any election? Please document how many times a corporation... any corporation, directly prevented you from voting.

No need to vote when you can buy politicians, lobby, and broadcast propaganda. I'm sure Diebold (R) has obstructed the right to vote for more than a few individuals.

Eminent domain had a long history before Kelo vs New London, and no matter how you frame it, is still all about the representation and power of corporations' collective rights dominating individual rights.

And still you defend collective rights of artificial non-persons over individual rights.

Some libertarian.






free0352 said...

Businesses, like all artificial or nonhuman entities, are not entitled to Constitutional protections or rights.

Maybe, but their members are. That means if they want to make a TV advertisement or take an add out in every single newspaper they have a right to do that under the 1st Amendment. And that is what soft money is.

We can eliminate all regulations and restrictions

I didn't say all I said many and HOW we regulate. Tort law works just fine. Take the BP oil spill. I can't argue intelligently on the subject of whether or not that spill could have been prevented and unless you're an off shore oil rig engineer neither can you. However, I can argue that the spill was catastrophic on a lot of levels and that every dime BP paid as a result of suits and fines is likely a major deterrent to BP itself in the future and other oil companies drilling off shore. It was billions on top of billions.

And the regulation you advocate Jeff is a catch 22 - because who does the regulating? Take say - fractional banking. Who is going to write those regulations and enforce them. Either guys like you and I... who know nothing about fractional banking and would just screw it up, or former bankers like the system we have today... which pisses you off. If you don't want ex-bankers (or in some cases current bankers) to do it, you're arguing for incompetence.

The "power of force" isn't needed when you've got the power of speech in the form of money, the power of bribery of our governmental officials through lobbying, and the power of corruption when the needs of our citizenry is forsaken for the wants of multinational corporatism.

I've seen force used just about every way I can think of in my life - and I've yet to see a dollar bill put a gun to anyone's head. People do that. Truth is the most any company can do to you is bring a suit against you in court.

Then its government that does the enforcing.












free0352 said...

Well, I'm glad I don't live in your narrow world of ten rights.

Actually you do. They are the law.

If wealth sets the standard of clean air and water, why does Canada and Scandinavia have better air and water?

Are you suggesting Canada and Norway are poor? Oh, and by the way- they get the majority of their national incomes from the energy sectors. Oil and natural gas.

The NSA doesn't write regulations

What planet do you live on. The NSA can bring the full power of every federal agency down upon those who question it. You go up against it at your great risk. Ever heard of the FISA court? You think all they do is issue rubber stamp warrants or do you think some of their secret court orders require "cooperation?"

broadcast propaganda

Translation: Say something Dave and Progressives disagree with.

Eminent domain had a long history before Kelo vs New London

Eminent domain is Constitutional when we're talking about a large public works project like a highway or a damn. Its not otherwise, and libertarians are at the forefront of stopping that.

Where are the liberals?














free0352 said...

As for Scandinavia, you are familiar with Volvo right? Made in Scandinavia. Well, just try to buy a Volvo in Sweden and ship it direct to the US. You can't. They'll turn it around at the port. Can't any other European car for that matter. Not a BMW, Scota, Mercedes or an Opal. They have to be Americanized for American clear air and safety laws first.

Our regulations are more strict.

So if regulations so great and European air quality is so pure... how come their lesser regulation isn't fowling their air?

Truth is the clean air in Norway or Canada has less to do with regulation and more to do with heavy industry concentration and a smaller population. You stick 300 people in Canada and the air quality will start to look just like ours... which for nations with over 300 million people isn't half bad.

Dave Dubya said...

So you think we only have ten rights?

The right to vote, to associate, to mobility, travel, breathe clean air, drink clean water, and a right to representation are real. You'd be howling mad if you lost those rights.

Corporations have a right to advertise. That is their business. Our elections are not their business. Those are not individuals' checks paying for their propaganda. Those are collective rights being used against the interests of individual rights.

free0352 said...

So you think we only have ten rights?

There are some others outlined in the constitution, like the 14th Amendment's expectation of due process and equal protection under the law.

Which by the way... you have. You can sue someone if you can show they are causing you damages by making the air dirty. You can even join a class action suit and sue along with many thousands of people. That is all the regulations we need. That's due process of law, not some unelected regulator in Washington DC making laws by fiat.

The right to vote

Yes you do, as outlined again by the Constitution. The rest on your list, aren't rights. You have to show damages in a court of law to determine if you were indeed... damaged. Have you been? Then you have legal recourse. We don't need a bureaucrat from some agency playing keystone kops.

paying for their propaganda

Translation: Anything Progressives disagree with.

Truth is, people CAN organize themselves outside government. That right they do have. Try as you might, you can't legally shut people up just by labeling their message as "propaganda."







Dave Dubya said...

So you stand corrected. We do indeed have more than ten rights.

How about a definition instead of your "translation'?

Propaganda - biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

This is what you want corporations to utilize in public elections?

They have the right to advertise their products and services. That's their business. Our elections are not their business. A corporation is not a citizen.

How about foreign owned corporations? Do they get to participate in our elections? Why not?

We have shown how collective rights subvert individual rights. As a collectivist corporatist, not a libertarian, you are defending collective rights.


free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

What you call propaganda is free speech. Libertarians support free speech. Progressives do not, and clearly you don't -

They have the right to advertise their products and services

Implying that that is only what they should be doing. I'm sure later on you'll claim I'm putting words in your mouth, which is what you always do when your totalitarian nature slips out. We're not all prisoners for you to boss around on this side of the wire Dave. Don't look now, your authoritarianism is showing.

The ACLU is a type of corporation, should we shut them up? The NAACP is a corporation, should we shut them up? The NRA is a corporation, should they be shut up? Who exactly needs to be quiet Dave? Who exactly is producing this propaganda that you need to silence? I'm saying no one, from Dow Chemical to Media Matters need pipe down. And who should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't? You?

Therefore, which of us is for freedom and which of us isn't? Which of us is for state control of media and who isn't? After all, that's what you're talking about... a state control of media. Which is what we see in most socialist countries - and you are a socialist. In the end, socialism doesn't support anyone's rights - be they collective or individual. It creates the dictatorship of the state. Its because you socialists can't handle competition. Your ideas can't stand up to others when people are given a clear choice. You can tell yourself its because of 'propaganda' but really its that people want freedom. And your ideas take that away from people.

Libertarians like myself, we think everyone in a group or alone has a right to say whatever they want. And if they have means, they can use those means to say it. Doesn't matter when those means are large or small. Even when we don't agree with them. I'd certainly say Think Progress meets your definition of propaganda, but I don't want to use law to shut them up like you would say - the Tea Party Express.

Dave Dubya said...

we think everyone in a group or alone has a right to say whatever they want.

FIRE! In a theater is ok?

How about threats to the president?

Ok.

So you support the right of foreign owned corporations to "free speech" in our elections? Unlimited foreign corporate campaign spending on their bought and paid for politician.

How generous of you.



Dave Dubya said...

Since when is lobbying, access to op-eds, and right to advertising being "silenced"?

What a drama queen.

Just keep their cash out of our elections. It's called corruption.

Corporations would also still have spokesmen on any form of media. It's not the corporate media would deny their voice. Not one person would have his rights taken away.

Besides FOX(R) will be spewing their propaganda for free anyway.






free0352 said...

FIRE! In a theater is ok?

We're not talking about that. We're talking about political speech. Hard core political speech. And of course you would introduce something absurd into the debate to take away from the fact what you're really trying to do, is stifle political speech you don't agree with. That's your position, the liberal position, the socialist position, the progressive position... whatever. Its even the position of some Republicans like John McCain. Libertarians believe in totally unregulated political speech. Period. You... don't. Authoritarian? Yup.

So you support the right of foreign owned corporations to "free speech" in our elections?

Sure. And we VOTERS have a duty to not vote for the candidate that relies on that. That's the check. The people are the check. That is our job, as citizens.

Since when is lobbying, access to op-eds, and right to advertising being "silenced"?

That's what you want isn't it? Oh I know, I'm putting "words" in your mouth again. Yeah, except I'm not. I'm translating socialist code. You want soft money gone. That means shutting people up. You want that soft money gone, because it stops your socialism. Its information, and its information that makes it very hard for socialists to win elections.

Not one person would have his rights taken away

Except when they did, as it happened to Citizens United.

Dave Dubya said...

So the collectivist corporatist wants foreign owned corporations buying our politicians too.

Man that's a lot of "freedom" aka corruption, granted to... to non-human non-citizens.

Yes, equating lobbying, access to op-eds, and right to advertising to being "silenced" laughable.

free0352 said...

So the collectivist corporatist wants foreign owned corporations buying our politicians too.

Instead of using the authoritarian club, we want voters to do their jobs. You supposedly like Democracy a lot, so why not this?

equating lobbying, access to op-eds, and right to advertising to being "silenced

When you want to say something... then you can't. That's silenced.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "When you want to say something... then you can't. That's silenced."

Like when the corporate media omit key pieces of evidence that make it apparent there was a coverup in the 9/11 tragedy?

As Dave and I have maintained for probably a thousand times, corporate entities are not entitled to Constitutional rights. Certainly each individual who associates with any entity, corporate or otherwise, has these rights, but absolutely not the human-created entities, themselves. Their omission from the Bill of Rights makes this very clear. To argue otherwise is foolish and disingenuous.

As I've said a couple of times, once libertarianism denounces corporate personhood and the Corporate-State, then I'll be on-board. Until that day, not a chance.

free0352 said...

Then I guess we'll just have to get by without you Jeff. I think we'll be okay. Meanwhile, you can keep vicariously supporting the surveillance, nanny,, conspiracy theorist, welfare state.

Enjoy.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Meanwhile, you can keep vicariously supporting the surveillance [state]...

No, that's you and your militaristic "libertarianism", which supports the concept of a corporate-state. Not me, Tool-Boy!


"... [the] nanny [state]...

From American Heritage Dictionary:

nanny state

n. Informal

A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

Yup, I have no problem with this definition, and as a matter of fact, believe the government has an obligation to make sure we're not poisoned, shot, maimed, cheated, or conned by unscrupulous businesses. That's a good thing! I like living in a civilized society. Apparently, you don't.


"...conspiracy theorist..."

You're the one one the wildest "conspiracy theories"! Weren't you the one who brought the idea of "Sharia Law" into the conversation? ;-) And your preposterous idea that there are terrorists behind every rock and tree, just waiting to "get us"! Well, I do concede one point, there probably are now -- thanks in part to you. But that was hardly the case in 2001. You, Tool Boy, helped create the enemies you're so fearful about -- and want us to be fearful of, also.


"...[and the] welfare state."

I know, it's horrible doling out subsidies and allowing multinationals to welch on their taxes, but that's apparently what you support. As long as you condone corporate personhood, these inequities will always exist.


"Enjoy."

As a matter of fact, I do -- especially when your libertarian nonsense is shown to be just that: nonsense.

free0352 said...

Apparently you feel you need to be protected from yourself. I don't.

I don't need a government to decide what "propaganda" is. I can do that for myself just fine.

I don't need government to choose my candidates for me, I can choose whom to vote for on my own. I don't need your help.

I don't need a government to regulate business, I can choose what to buy on my own just fine. And if someone causes me damages, I can hire an attorney and sue them just fine. I don't need a regulator to protect me, I can take care of myself.

I don't need the police to protect me, I can protect myself just fine. Granted we need a neutral organization to administer investigations and criminal proceedings... but as for protection, I can protect myself.

What you're talking about Jeff, is a powerful paternalistic, authoritarian daddy to babysit you. That isn't freedom, that's like regressing back to childhood. That isn't a modern civilization, that's going back to the "king" ruling his subjects.

I'm sure you'd make a great subject, but I'd rather be a citizen - and the major part of being a citizen is taking care of yourself and not surrendering your duties and responsibilities to THE STATE. You might need that, and Cuba is always there for you if you want it. I'm sure the Castro family would be happy to have another victim.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Weren't you the one who brought the idea of "Sharia Law" into the conversation?

As I recall I mentioned there are Muslims in this world that will engage in terrorism against the United States until it adopts Sharia law. That's just a plain fact. Odds of it happening? Not likely. But if you want to appease those terrorists, that's what you'd have to do.

it's horrible doling out subsidies and allowing multinationals to welch on their taxes, but that's apparently what you support.

No its not. I say cut them off. Cut everybody off. No more welfare. And as for taxes, I support a flat tax of 11% on all income. One tax, for all people. If you make money, 11 cents of every dollar goes to pay for the very limited government I'd like to have.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I don't need a government to decide what 'propaganda' is. I can do that for myself just fine."

Apparently, you can't. You've bought into the propaganda of the Corporate-State. and its life-giving blood of corporate personhood.


"I don't need government to choose my candidates for me, I can choose whom to vote for on my own. I don't need your help."

But you allow yourself to be bought by libertarianism, which supports and condones the Corporate-State.

You sound bought to me. Why do you think I refer to you as "Tool Boy"?


"I don't need a government to regulate business, I can choose what to buy on my own just fine. And if someone causes me damages, I can hire an attorney and sue them just fine. I don't need a regulator to protect me, I can take care of myself."

Not if you don't know what it is you're buying. In way too many cases it's not apparent.

As far as hiring an attorney, good luck. You, and your two-bit attorney, against ExxonMobil...who do you think is gonna win? I previously gave you an example with "grandma". You're living an illusion...a delusion...if you think you'd have a chance.

I'd rather not be forced to share your delusion.


"I don't need the police to protect me, I can protect myself just fine. Granted we need a neutral organization to administer investigations and criminal proceedings... but as for protection, I can protect myself."

You've claimed many times that you don't support anarchy. These statements say otherwise.

You're talking like Clint Eastwood...or Rambo. You write with the same abnormality as someone suffering from delusions of grandeur. Again, I'd rather not share your delusions. Please, keep your disorder to yourself.


"What you're talking about Jeff, is a powerful paternalistic, authoritarian daddy to babysit you. That isn't freedom, that's like regressing back to childhood. That isn't a modern civilization, that's going back to the 'king' ruling his subjects."

No, what I'm talking about is giving democracy back to individuals, just as the Constitution envisioned it, and taking these rights away from legal fictions such as multinational corporations.

I'm starting to realize that in your utopian world of libertarianism, that everything is based upon an economic incentive and "power". I'd rather not live in your delusional world where liberty and justice (i.e., "democracy") have a price-tag -- where obtaining them is based upon how much you're able or willing to pay. That's not freedom. It's an auction.

"I'm sure you'd make a great subject, but I'd rather be a citizen - and the major part of being a citizen is taking care of yourself and not surrendering your duties and responsibilities to THE STATE."

But you're more than willing to relinquish everything to -- and as a matter of fact, whore yourself for -- THE CORPORATE-STATE.

That's what you do when you support corporate personhood -- which you obviously do.


"No its not."

Yes it is...as long as you support corporate sovereignty over your elected representatives, which you do, by default, when you support and condone THE CORPORATE-STATE.

free0352 said...

against ExxonMobil...who do you think is gonna win?

People win lawsuits against major corporations every day.

Not if you don't know what it is you're buying

I know.


You're talking like Clint Eastwood...or Rambo.


Well I'm sorry if you have a dick measuring complex. The police don't protect you now. That's not how they work. The average US response time is 17 minutes and the best is 7. For that time frame, you're on your own. Its up to you, assuming you can even call for help.

You are responsible for your physical security, whether you accept that responsibility or not champ. And its not Rambo style to take that serious. Its just smart.

that everything is based upon an economic incentive

That's not a libertarian statement. That's like saying the world is based upon gravity and the laws of physics. People don't do things without incentive, and the most common incentive is economic. What's wrong with that?

and "power".

The "power" we want is to have no power... only people who enter into voluntary agreements. For the record, a welfare state isn't voluntary. You can't opt out. You're in, and you're paying for it... like it or not. That's force. So no Jeff, you're the one who wants power. Not us. We want freedom.

But you're more than willing to relinquish everything to -- and as a matter of fact, whore yourself for -- THE CORPORATE-STATE.

How so? Everything I want, is about choice. There is no choice in a socialist welfare state. You're in, and you pay. Or a guy with a gun comes and takes you to jail. That's what you support. A man with a gun, forcing you to do something. I should know after all... I used to be the man with the gun. And not in the military. When I was a court bailiff. That's why it wasn't for me. I used to enforce the judicial orders after all. Didn't pay up when the court ordered it, I showed up at your house. And I didn't ask nice, and those cuffs were tight. That's no way to run a world.














Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "People win lawsuits against major corporations every day."

But the vast amount don't -- although they should.


"I know [what I'm buying]."

So you know exactly what's in every packaged item you pull off the grocery shelf?

You must have x-ray vision...or carry a mass spectrometer and a gas pycnometer in your pocket.


"Well I'm sorry if you have a dick measuring complex."

Well, I don't, but you must have since you thought it was important enough to bring up.

What's the matter -- missin' those foxhole days with your "brothers in arms"? ;-)


"The police don't protect you now."

I'd hate to think what it would be like without 'em. You'd be standing guard 24/7, which is apparently what your so-called "libertarian freedom" strives to accomplish.

No thanks, I'd rather have it like it is today. It's not perfect, but it beats your lunacy.


"People don't do things without incentive, and the most common incentive is economic. What's wrong with that?"

Nothing, nothing at all -- but your libertarianism says it starts and ends with economic incentive. That's pretty hard to believe. Do you have kids? (I seem to recall that you do.)


"The 'power" we want is to have no power..."

No, I interpret everything you've said, and everything you've inferred, to mean you want multinational corporations to have the power. But you're right...once they control everything, you'll have none. None at all. But that seems to be okay with you.

It isn't okay with me.


"How so? Everything I want, is about choice."

As I told you at least three other times, once libertarianism denounces the Corporate-State and corporate personhood, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Until that day, you're only fooling yourself if you think shrinking the government and eliminating regulation is all that is needed to make you "free".


"There is no choice in a socialist welfare state."

Yet, you see immeasurable possibilities within the current Corporate-State! That's fascinating!

Which country are you referring to when you describe the "socialist welfare state"? Norway? Sweden? Where?


"That's what you support."

When have I said I "supported" a "socialist welfare state"? I believe you're confusing me with someone else.

However, I do denounce the "Corporate-State", which we've evolved into. (Or, have I mentioned that already?)


"A man with a gun, forcing you to do something."

He hasn't been to my house. Has he been to yours? Maybe you should move.


"I used to enforce the judicial orders after all. Didn't pay up when the court ordered it, I showed up at your house."

Sounds like you don't believe in the court system, after all.

So let's see, let's count 'em up: (1) Eliminate police protection; and (2) Eliminate the judicial system.

Do you want to get rid of teachers and the fire department, too? Are they also holding you back from being "free"?

Dave Dubya said...

When you want to say something... then you can't. That's silenced.

There “you” go again, talking about a corporation as it were a person.

”So the collectivist corporatist wants foreign owned corporations buying our politicians too.”
we want voters to do their jobs.


Their “job” is too often limited to choosing between corporatist A and corporatist B.

Cut everybody off. No more welfare.

As long as corporations have collective rights and the “free speech” cash, what do you think is going to happen? All of you corporate collectivists assure continued corporate welfare.

As if they need food on the table...

free0352 said...

But the vast amount don't -- although they should.

Lawsuits are decided by juries. If you don't agree with our own people making that call... who should make it then? You?

So you know exactly what's in every packaged item you pull off the grocery shelf?

Don't you?

I'd hate to think what it would be like without 'em

Didn't suggest we do that. But if you think you're being protected by the police, how come we have crime at all? How on earth did the violent people Dave is guarding manage to pull off the violence? The police can't be everywhere at once, and you wouldn't want them to be if they could. You've got to protect yourself... or not. Your choice. I choose self defense over victimhood.

That's pretty hard to believe. Do you have kids? (I seem to recall that you do.)

Who do you think I'm thinking about with the economic incentive? Every dime I pay the government is a dime I can't spend on my family - which is where the vast majority of my money goes.

I interpret everything you've said, and everything you've inferred, to mean you want multinational corporations to have the power

I'm sorry but that's silly. All real power rests with government. Power = force. The worst a corporation can do is sue you in court. The government? They can send men to your house to take you away and if you resist you are going to have a very bad day. Again, I was once the guy who came to your house. I never shot anyone in this country, but had my life been in danger for one second believe me I would have. And believe me, we didn't have TAZERS but we had OC spray and batons and they got used if you resisted. And that's lawful in most cases - in all of mine for sure, but don't get confused about who has the real power. I say use that power very sparingly.

Yet, you see immeasurable possibilities within the current Corporate-State!

Never had a corporation force me to do anything. You haven't either. Not unless you willingly signed a contract. And after all, that was your choice. For example I should be able to opt out of social security. But I can't, I don't get that choice. And why not? If Social Security was so great, wouldn't people be lining up around the block for it?

He hasn't been to my house.

Try not paying that Social Security tax and see what happens.

So let's see, let's count 'em up: (1) Eliminate police protection; and (2) Eliminate the judicial system.

Never said that. Government regulators aren't part of the judicial system, they're authority rests with the EXECUTIVE branch. That's what I want done away with. I actually want this solved in the judicial branch, not the opposite. And as for police, I simply pointed out they can't protect you all the time, and you have responsibility to protect yourself... and your family for that matter.

Do you want to get rid of teachers and the fire department, too? Are they also holding you back from being "free"?

My fire department is volunteer and they do a great job. As for teachers, there are more than one way to skin that cat. We don't need government for education, but if we must have it... again, how about some choice with School of Choice and a voucher system?























free0352 said...

There “you” go again, talking about a corporation as it were a person.

There you go again Dave. I've asked it before. Is Michael Moore a person or is he Mirimax and Disney? If we ban his films, did we silence the company or the man?

As long as corporations have collective rights and the “free speech” cash, what do you think is going to happen?

You're assuming all corporations take corporate welfare and wouldn't support taking it away from those who use it to unfairly compete for starters. That's flawed. Second, that day of reckoning is coming sooner rather than later. Time to shut the crony business tit OFF.


Dave Dubya said...

You're assuming all corporations take corporate welfare and wouldn't support taking it away from those who use it to unfairly compete for starters. That's flawed.

What's flawed is your assumption that I'm assuming.

"When you want to say something... then you can't. That's silenced."

There “you” go again, talking about a corporation as it were a person.

There you go again Dave.

No, there YOU go again with the corporate person-hood thing.

I don't support censorship of films or of any art form. I oppose corporate participation by bribery in our elections. See the difference?



free0352 said...

There “you” go again, talking about a corporation as it were a person

There you go, talking about Michael Moore as if he were a corporation.

Dave Dubya said...

There you go, talking about Michael Moore as if he were a corporation.

Again, no. I'm seriously thinking you may be inebriated... or suffering from closed head trauma.

YOU are the one bringing up Moore. Is there something special you feel about the man? A deep passion, or attraction/repulsion complex, simmering inside?

free0352 said...

YOU are the one bringing up Moore.

Yes. As an example of what happens were you to get your way. If it can happen to Citizens United it can happen to Mirimax.

A deep passion, or attraction/repulsion complex, simmering inside?

For the 1st Amendment? Yes.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Lawsuits are decided by juries."

No, the vast preponderance of lawsuits never make it before a jury -- they're settled out of court. Having worked as a law clerk, you should know this. (Perhaps that was another one of your lies.)


"Don't you [know what's in your food]?"

Yes, thanks to the Food and Drug Administration, for assuring that foods sold in the United States are safe, wholesome and properly labeled. This applies to foods produced domestically, as well as foods from foreign countries.

It's not as good as years ago, due to the FDA being bought by corporate interests who, I'm sure, now write the regulations, but it's still better than the libertarian idea of having absolutely nothing.


"Every dime I pay the government is a dime I can't spend on my family - which is where the vast majority of my money goes."

Sounds like you need some serious financial consultation. You're still filing the 1040EZ, I see.

If libertarianism has its way, those dimes you can't spend on your family will turn into dollars going to the healthcare companies -- which more likely will mean bankruptcy for you. Pollution of the environment has a nasty way of causing cancers and other debilitating diseases.

Welcome to your laissez-faire wet-dream!


"Never had a corporation force me to do anything. You haven't either."

Obviously you never bothered to link to the 100 who have!

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

they're settled out of court

Key word SETTLED. As in came to an agreement.

Of course if that doesn't happen, then a jury makes the decision. But oh god forbid the person who suffered damages or 12 peers come up with an answer! Oh nooooooes. We need an appointed paper pusher 3000 miles away to decide things... Someone in power should decide. Someone like - you?

Sounds like you need some serious financial consultation

I'm always open to ideas on how to make more money. I have few needs. I'd be happy just about anywhere. Now my wife and kids... their wants eat up the budget. But that's okay.

which more likely will mean bankruptcy for you

Nah. Its too easy to get cheap healthcare. When I was contracting my company only provided care for me when overseas. I spent the least on healthcare that year than any other year, and that was the year my daughter had to have her appendix out. The year I spent the most, was last year when I had "free" Tricare. Healthcare is only expensive for people who aren't deathly ill who are foolish enough to pay full price.

But the really funny thing is, even you admit the regulations don't actually work. You just told me yourself you don't think the FDA is doing that great a job... and then argued for even more FDA. We pay millions upon millions a year for the FDA, and even you admit they don't get the job done. That don't make no sense (double negative intended for sarcastic value. I know you need help with that sometimes.)

Obviously you never bothered to link to the 100 who have!

Oh please, entertain me with stories of all the times corporations forced you to buy their products?

Jerry Critter said...

Free,
I am glad to see that you are not in favor of tort reform. Let every patient who feels wronged by their doctor sue the shit out of them.

free0352 said...

Let every patient who feels wronged by their doctor sue the shit out of them.

People's definition of torn reform changes from person to person. But on the whole, I'm not for it. I think Judges should do their jobs at summery disposition and award costs for frivolous suits. Those laws are on the books today, and don't require anything new.

But you can go fishing for a tort reformer if you want Jerry, I'm not really one of them.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I'm always open to ideas on how to make more money. I have few needs. I'd be happy just about anywhere. Now my wife and kids... their wants eat up the budget. But that's okay."

So, I guess you married and decided to have children because of "economic incentive"? ;-)

Jerry Critter said...

We agree, Free!

free0352 said...

We probably do agree Jerry.

How do we stop frivolous lawsuits? The answer is judges doing the right thing. I remember one case, where a prisoner who'd had several lawyers was suing them all for legal malpractice without cause. It had nothing to do with the quality of his representation, and everything to do with his gaining access to the prison law library as he was at this point pro per. I guess the library beat the yard or maybe he was conducting business in the library or something. Either way, the cases were BS. It was a challenge for the judge to award costs as the inmate was doing life and had nothing.

So finally my judge awarded the contents of his prison account for a few years and ordered the inmate to scrub floors or something for free as payment of costs. Amazingly, this litigious inmate quit it.

This is how you stop frivolous law suits. You don't need any new laws. If your judges aren't doing this, get new judges.

free0352 said...

So, I guess you married and decided to have children because of "economic incentive"?

Sure in a manner of speaking. Its no sacrifice to have a wife and daughter. I enjoy the hell out of them. They make me very, very happy. I get a lot out of our relationship. I gain a lot. I've been divorced, so believe me when I tell you that if the wife wasn't a net positive... I wouldn't be married.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Sure in a manner of speaking. Its no sacrifice to have a wife and daughter. I enjoy the hell out of them. They make me very, very happy. I get a lot out of our relationship. I gain a lot."

Good! At least you agree that everything isn't based upon economic incentive, and there's a lot to gain (your words) from non-economic values.

Assume so, and that you haven't changed your stance over the past 24 hours or so.

Dave Dubya said...

a lot to gain (your words) from non-economic values.

Or more likely, she makes a lot more money than he does. I admit to being lucky enough to have a wife who earns close to a hundred dollars an hour. (Thank you "free market".) But I married her when she was a grad student.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Or more likely, she makes a lot more money than he does."

Thank you, Dave, I forgot about that! Now that you've mentioned it, I do recall him telling us that his wife made good money.

It still doesn't take away from my point -- that not all "gains" can be calculated or measured in economic terms. There are non-economic incentives that play a large part in our cultural values and societal structures, despite what Free0352 wants to believe.

Well, that is unless his kids "make [him] very, very happy" (again, his words) because he subs them out to Chinese child-labor factories making Nike shoes.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

My wife and I have had exactly two fights in seven years and by most standards those fights were pretty tame. No yelling or throwing things... I think I slammed a door once. The reason for this, is we have a very clear vision of our marriage. We were both married before. We jokingly call our marriage 2.0, and our ex'es "prototypes."

We were both pretty much against getting married ever again because both our first marriages were miserable, but when I got a post overseas the only way she could go with was if we made it legal. We didn't have some romantic proposal, I flat told her I was going to Europe for four years and invited her to come. She and I sat down and on paper outlined what we wanted our marriage to look like. Neither of us wanted to repeat the past.

We drew in red-lines so to speak - thats what we call them - and if either of us crossed those lines we made it clear we not only would get divorced; we pretty much mandated it with each other. So yes, if my wife becomes a willing deadbeat, she's done. Goes for me too.

We then wrote up a prenuptial agreement that would really financially punish someone who crossed what we called a red line in the event of a divorce. It was very businesslike. At the end, we both signed.

Its worked great. Our marriage isn't some sentimental vow, or religious right - its a contract. That doesn't mean we don't love each other and the whole thing was for convenience. We both recognized that love is nice, but people who love each other or at least loved each other get divorced every day. People who love each other do terrible things to one another all the time.

This idea that you make it work even when the going gets rough... or you are bound to each other no matter what is what kills it. We both stuck out our fist marriages for too long only to see us bot respectively fail despite the misery and sacrifice we both put in. We both understood that sacrifice usually isn't worth it.

For us, what makes our marriage work is very simple - if I make my wife miserable then she WILL leave. Same for me. That keeps us honest. Knowing that if I take out my bad day at work on her one too many times - I not only lose my wife but 75% of the assets. That is a powerful ECONOMIC incentive to treat my wife with respect. I don't respect my wife out of some silly notion of duty or kindness - that kind of so called unconditional love is fleeting. I respect her because she demands that respect with force of law behind it. And I the same with her. We operate on the principle that you can't love someone you don't have respect for. So we demand it of each other. Lose respect, and we walk. Right then. Boom.

free0352 said...

That might sound cold and harsh... but here's the funny thing. Most of my friends are miserable in their marriages. I'm happy, and so is my wife. My wife does her part, and I do mine and that makes harmony. We don't ever scream, yell, insult one another - any of the things I saw on a day-to-day basis working in Family Court for those years. Why?

Respect backed up with a contract.

So it seems, economics can generate and sustain love. The truth is, self interest is the basis for all functioning relationships. If you're not getting anything out of it... you're not going to care for the person whose doing all the taking. Sacrifice kills marriages IMHO. Raw emotion in my experience, wrecks it.

As for how much my wife makes, I'm making more at the moment. But if she pulled ahead, I'd be proud as hell. The point is she puts out the effort, she contributes. The day she quits, she's done.

As for my daughter, I have this philosophy that they harder you make your kids work, the less trouble they get into. So since my daughter was in grade school, she's had two options. Work, or extracurricular. School is a given. Obviously, when you have a dad who finds jobs for you as a kid- you find stuff to appease dad. I taught my daughter not only how to work hard, but work smart. She's 16 now and decided the concert band tour in Europe beat out buying a used car. Of course, I have to help out money wise with that and her other passion - horseback ridding - which aren't cheap, but I shell it out. But make no mistake, if my kid came home hooked on dope or adopted a lifestyle that was self destructive, she'd be done. Done. I come from a military family and I run a military family. You have to earn respect in my house. Lose it and there is the door. It may be tough, but you have to set standards as a parent. So my teenager understands there will be no tolerance for acting like Dave's inmates. That to have a place in a family, you have to earn it. That if you do well you should be proud and others will be proud of you. Should you happen to fail, feeling sorry for yourself is not tolerated and you should not tolerate self pity in others. And if you become self destructive, you deserve the full measure of the consequences and your self destruction should not be permitted to effect others.

So anyway, there is the family philosophy of free0352 for what its worth. Its all based on pretty much economic incentive. And for me at least, it works well.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "The point is she puts out the effort, [my wife] contributes. The day she quits, she's done."

If, for example, your wife were to become traumatically injured in an accident, and was no longer able to contribute monetarily to your contractually-validated family unit, would she have crossed your predetermined "red line"?


"...there is the family philosophy of free0352 for what its worth. Its all based on pretty much economic incentive." [bold font my own]

"Pretty much", huh?

It still doesn't explain "why" you had a child. There's certainly no economic incentive to do so unless you depend upon the labor of a less-mechanized agrarian culture, for example.

Dave Dubya said...

I'm sure the child was a calculated economic self interest type decision. Free is above those primal, emotional drives. Or she was his one and only "mistake".

The best part of a bottom line, "red line" marriage is you don't have to be concerned about those sappy parts like "in sickness and in health" or the "for better and for worse".

Should disability occur, the partner in violation could at least be used as a protein source for the able bodied.

Yes, this "rational self interest" would make Rand proud.





free0352 said...

, your wife were to become traumatically injured in an accident

The wife remains healthy, but I myself got shot in the leg and four months later got blown up and broke my back and pelvis and spent months in traction. So in my marriage we've been there done that. I spent two months getting strong enough to walk on my own again. As a result of those injuries I had to retire after 15 years. I didn't wallow in self pity and the setbacks of my "disability."

I got out of the military and got a job. I remained and remain productive and a contributing member of my family. If you really love people, you don't fail them. My father worked right through both his bouts of chemotherapy - he didn't miss a days work. After one of his cancer surgeries he walked out of the recovery room and went right back out on the dock and knocked out scheduling. He did that as an example to the employees who worked for him and as an example to me. Thats where he set the bar, and where I set it for myself.

But I'm sure it would have been much more loving to kick back on the couch and let the wife shoulder the load on her own while I felt sorry for myself when I was wounded? Remember, when someone is being altruistic, someone else is being selfish.

free0352 said...

It still doesn't explain "why" you had a child

My daughter was born the summer between my junior and senior year of highschool. It certainly wasn't my intent to be a dad a few months before turning 18.

I had to quit sports and work 40 hours a week in addition to high school, and lost my slot at a service academy because the service academy's won't take you if you have dependents.

Again, I didn't wallow in self pity and cry and moan or give up my responsibility. Do I love my kid? Sure. That means I set high standards for her, so she can meet them and learn to be successful and self sufficient. Coddling your children is tantamount to abusing them.

Dave Dubya said...

So in my marriage we've been there done that.

You think so? Really? Man, that is arrogance and ignorance rolled into one.

Age will take its toll, if you're lucky enough to get old. That's a promise. Accidents and disease still await you. Sorry, you ain't 'been there, done that" yet.

And if one of you becomes infirm due to accident or illness, then what? What happens after a stroke, heart attack, West Nile disease, etc.? Protein source if your "ethics" prevail.

Or you may awaken to what love and altruism really are. Perhaps some day wisdom will replace your cold blooded Randroid ideology. But I doubt it. As an authoritarian personality, you need to refuse to consider the possibility that you have not "been there done that".

Humans have always, and will always, take care of each other. It is the best of our nature, not the worst. And it is not reserved for comrades in combat. You seem to get that part. Perhaps it's fear of dishonor over altruism. But when one's only measure of value is dollar signs, we don't expect you to reflect the best of human nature.

And this is exactly why corporations are not persons and not citizens, and should not be given collective rights that dominate over individual rights.

There, that should tie this all together.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "There, that should tie this all together."

Yes, it was perfect...

(It's funny how Free0352 attempted to play the sympathy card as a means of deflection. War injuries...kid out of wedlock...he's just beginning to come face-to-face with life's "little inconveniences" and twists and turns of fate. Maybe he'll get the chance to experience it into old age. Something tells me, though, that he won't.)

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»