Third Party & Independents Archives

That Marxist at JP Morgan

As has been convincingly stated here, liberal guilt is a painless path to redemption for our society’s problems for any individual who wishes to suffer just a little without actually doing much about the particular problem they feel a need to shed a few reptilian tears over. It’s interesting to ask why this neccessary guilt, why do they believe we should feel guilty? The answer to this question tends to end up talking about inequality in some shape or form; most often it is economic inequality that seems to be the underlying issue in their minds. We have too much inequality, or too much lack of advancement. If you compare all the consumer goods we enjoy in our homes, even relatively poor homes, compared to just 30 years ago, that just won’t do either. It’s relative poverty that matters. Ahhh, of course.


So if what we really need is more equality, then how much more equality do we need? Do we need CEO's salaries to be the same multiple of the average salary of their workers as in, say, the late seventies? When Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Congress gave the country a taste of double digit inflation spiced up with lots of labor protests? When wage driven inflation was on most commentators lips? Do we need Scandinavian style equality, like in Palme's Sweden which as PJ O'Rourke pointed out, was not much different on paper than Castro's Cuba? How much equality guarantees us a guilt free society? Funny I mentioned Cuba; a likely origin for all this guilt is one of Marxism's most preposterous and poisonous tenets: the notion that all private property is theft.

This would be a ridiculous anachronism gathering dust somewhere were it not so insidiously entangled nowadays with Determinism: the idea that with the necessaray science and statistics we can predict and manage our society's future according to rules that spring from physical nature in the same sense as quantum mechanics does. Yes, that economist massaging Bureau of Labor statistics at JP Morgan owes a little more to Marxism than she or he might admit. In fact, Marx believed his crazed ideology was as objective as Newtonian physics and the bloodshed and terror unleashed on the world as a result are there for all of us to wonder in horror at. What is left over in today's world is that ongoing battle between determinism - we can policy wonk our way out of this guys! - and free will. And guilt, the guilt based on the notion that the plight of others is always our fault, is the residual left over from that supremely dangerous idea that Marxism gave the world: that the wealth you work to achieve is merely stolen goods. Want to sleep better? Find a charity that gets the money to where they say it's going, (not always an easy task), if you must, and lighten up on that guilt.

Posted by AllardK at April 11, 2014 3:44 PM
Comments
Comment #377858
most often it is economic inequality that seems to be the underlying issue in their minds. We have too much inequality, or too much lack of advancement.
The problem we are facing is not one of unequal outcomes, but one of unequal opportunities to succeed. This is not a problem private charity can solve, but only one that government can. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 12, 2014 5:30 PM
Comment #377859

Sorry Warren, it is not government’s job to equalize opportunity as long as everyone has the same “legal rights”.

Should government devise a way to enforce equal effort…then, we would really have achieved something.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 12, 2014 6:23 PM
Comment #377861
The problem we are facing is not one of unequal outcomes, but one of unequal opportunities to succeed.

And the proof of this is?

I’m sorry, but this imagined inequality of opportunity just doesn’t exist in any real sense… So we don’t need government to fix a problem that they largely have created.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 12, 2014 8:37 PM
Comment #377862

Rhinehold, I suppose crony capitalism is also imagined and doesn’t exist in any real sense as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 13, 2014 11:59 AM
Comment #377863

j2t2, never suggested any such thing, in fact I have been fighting against crony capitalism for decades, long before it was the topic of the day for progressives.

Now, do you want to address what was written and not a straw man you want to build? What is the evidence I asked for? Can we discuss facts instead of emotional appeals?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 13, 2014 1:28 PM
Comment #377865

Straw man Rhinehold! When the original article uses the standards of many generations past as a justification for the present for starters! When conservatives tell us we are expecting equal outcomes! If it weren’t for strawmen what would exist in this thread other than Warrens comment?

Not to mention the oxymoron of a problem that doesn’t exist yet was created by the government!

Crony capitalism or as I like to say corporatism is in fact proof that opportunity inequality does in fact exist and the problem is the capitalist system as modified by capitalist using government as the tool.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 13, 2014 9:09 PM
Comment #377870

Here’s an interesting question: For all of our expansion as a nation, structures, cities, streets, faux commerce areas et al, do we as a “people” have enough “people” to quantify an economy we want? Or for more specificity the type of economy people expect to be here in the US for all of us?

The problem as I see it with the left position is that the populations just are not there buying enough to make every area a success story. It is all in the math and we are expecting Detroit and NYC to come back up again (as if it were ever up). We expanded too far and there just are way too many sob stories per capita as a result—we went too far with the automobile revolution—we need to neo-unbanize for food and goods.

The next revolution is we move back intown and start an economy where by which we can sell our goods enmasse bulk to buyers.

Will we ever get out of this Charlie Chaplain serial as a nation?

Posted by: simpleheaded at April 14, 2014 2:14 PM
Comment #377871

j2t2, there is more to corpocracy than crony capitalism. IMO, we are in full blown oligarcy.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at April 14, 2014 5:12 PM
Comment #377917
Straw man Rhinehold!

No, my response was to a direct statement, I am addressing that statement. If you have the evidence to back up the statement, then please do so. Otherwise, the only one engaging in any straw men is you.

If it weren’t for strawmen what would exist in this thread other than Warrens comment?

And I am only addressing Warren’s comment, so everything else you are stating is questionable at best.

Not to mention the oxymoron of a problem that doesn’t exist yet was created by the government!

Hah, that did come out odd, didn’t it? It really depends on what one defines as being the issue, perhaps some more clarity on that could be provided by Warren or yourself so that a discussion on the issue could be adequately discussed? That is, if the desire is not an appeal to emotion to begin with…

Crony capitalism or as I like to say corporatism

A term that I think you seem to like because it says ‘corporate’ in it and that is where your ire lies, instead of where the real issues reside. Corporations are not real, in that all they are are individuals operating as a group. Apparently you have a problem with this, only when they do something you disagree with. When they do it in a way you like (like a union or a non-profit corporation like the ACLU or NAACP who’s position you like or a for-profit corporation like Progressive or other like corporations, etc).

is in fact proof that opportunity inequality does in fact exist and the problem is the capitalist system as modified by capitalist using government as the tool.

Opportunity inequality exists, as you say. But you don’t give any proof of it, other than there is a term being used by some that you like? Interesting…

The problem is that the government has taken or been given too much power and as a result people are trying to use that power. When those you disagree with use that power, you shake your fists, but when those you agree with use that power, then you are happy. That’s where the problem lies, j2t2, people like you…

Here’s an example, a list of 11 examples of why it is harder for people to get into business because of government having and using too much power.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/11-crazy-laws-that-keep-you-from-getting-a-job-4y3w

A few examples:

You can’t predict the future without a license in Massachusetts. It’s also against the law to have “pretended fortune telling,” as opposed to, you know, authentic fortune telling. Unlicensed soothsayers can face $100 in fines. (Of course, if they were any good, they would know when the cops are coming.)

Alabama, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Tennessee all require a license to shampoo (human) hair, while the Volunteer State has some ridiculously over-the-top requirements. A “shampoo technician” there needs 300 hours of training “in the practice and theory of shampooing,” before taking two exams on how to wash someone’s hair.

Arizona is trying to put Celeste Kelly out of a job. Celeste is a certified horse massage therapist. But in Arizona, massaging animals is illegal unless you have a license in veterinary medicine. Otherwise, you can face up to $3,500 in fines and six months in jail.

Of course, if someone wants to massage humans, they don’t need to go to med school. Four-legged friends shouldn’t be any different. Now Celeste is taking the state vet board to court.

I’m all for doing something about these uses of government to deny entry into the marketplace, put into place by existing businesses who want to limit competition.

But when someone comes along and says we should get rid of this type of rampantly stupid regulation, you cry fowl! We need regulations! We do, but we need limited, focused, smart regulation, not this idiotic mess we have now.

That’s the dilemma, isn’t it j2t2? The fix for this is deregulation, but the left can’t handle giving up that power, instead they want to regulate the regulations with more regulations, etc…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2014 11:46 AM
Comment #377982

Roy I agree there is more to corpocracy than crony capitalism.

If you have the evidence to back up the statement, then please do so. Otherwise, the only one engaging in any straw men is you.

Rhinehold, once again crony capitalism is proof that inequality of opportunity exists. Another bit of proof - Try and borrow money from the FED at the rate the banksters get. I know we can go over the theory of opportunity inequality and get to a formula that tells us there is inequality of opportunity here and abroad but IMHO the proof is in the pudding. When a CEO doesn’t produce and is fired he leaves with a golden parachute worth lots of money, when the real working guy gets fired he leaves with little or nothing.

A term that I think you seem to like because it says ‘corporate’ in it and that is where your ire lies, instead of where the real issues reside. Corporations are not real, in that all they are are individuals operating as a group.

My ire lies in the fact that corporations are as you say a collective of people yet seem to have the rights of an individual. My ire lies in allowing corporations to use their wealth to buy our elected officials, big money donors that have become part of the problem. My ire lies in corporations becoming a collective of corporations that use their influence in the political process,to make opportunity inequality law, part of our system of government. Corporations are a business entity Rhinehold not a governing body, when they over step their bounds I don’t like it, they are after all a dictatorship.

Opportunity inequality exists, as you say. But you don’t give any proof of it, other than there is a term being used by some that you like? Interesting…

But but but I did Rhinehold you refused to acknowledge it. You must want a link to Fox or something to validate my opinion. Wellll not today, but here is one from Wiki instead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_opportunity

That’s the dilemma, isn’t it j2t2? The fix for this is deregulation, but the left can’t handle giving up that power, instead they want to regulate the regulations with more regulations, etc…

I don’t know anybody against intelligent deregulation Rhinehold, but when and where have we seen anything of the sort? Corporate America writes the laws, sometimes ALEC gets them to the state or federal elected representatives sometimes they just have their bought and paid for representative do it for them and creates the laws you bring up.

Your corporations have been banging the deregulation drum for so long with so much money and power behind them they have turned deregulation into a means to further the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. Deregulation means take advantage of the individual anymore IMHO Rhinehold.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2014 7:56 AM
Comment #377985
My ire lies in the fact that corporations are as you say a collective of people yet seem to have the rights of an individual.

No, they don’t.

My ire lies in allowing corporations to use their wealth to buy our elected officials, big money donors that have become part of the problem.

You’re making my brain hurt now…

So, your ire lies in allowing collections of people to pool their money together and direct their money in coordinated fashion to get make their political views.

Like, you know, unions do, NAACP does, Priorities USA Action, etc… Apparently it is ok for these people to pool their money to make their political views known, but for corporations to do so is, in your opinion, wrong. Yet you can’t really explain why…

Corporations are a business entity Rhinehold not a governing body, when they over step their bounds I don’t like it, they are after all a dictatorship.

They are as much a governing body as Priorities USA, NAACP, ACLU, Sierra Club, SEIU, Teamsters, etc, etc…

For some reason, they are able to voice their opinion by pooling money together, but corporations, like Citizens United, isn’t. I don’t see the logic here.

I did Rhinehold you refused to acknowledge it.

No, you actually didn’t. You made a couple of lame statements that meant pretty much nothing.

However, I will address your link and point out how much it shows that progressives are as much at the heart of the issue of equality of opportunity as conservatives are…

The aim according to this often complex and contested concept[2] is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,[3] religion, sex,[4] ethnicity,[4] race, caste,[5] or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender, or sexual orientation.[5][6] Chances for advancement should be open to everybody interested[7] such that they have “an equal chance to compete within the framework of goals and the structure of rules established.”[8] The idea is to remove arbitrariness from the selection process and base it on some “pre-agreed basis of fairness, with the assessment process being related to the type of position,”[3] and emphasizing procedural and legal means.[5][9] Individuals should succeed or fail based on their own efforts and not extraneous circumstances such as having well-connected parents.[10] It is opposed to nepotism[3] and plays a role in whether a social structure is seen as legitimate.

Things like quotas, hiring preferences, lowered standards…

In fact, the only ones actually arguing for true equality of opportunity in this country are the Libertarians.

Funny that, isn’t it?

Corporate America writes the laws

What a complete load of bullshit. I guess Teachers Unions don’t write the education laws, civil rights organizations don’t write the quota laws, protection groups don’t write the OSHA and FDA laws…

Which corporation wrote the tax code that punishes companies and individuals for success? Which corporation wrote the citizens with disabilities acts?

Which corporation is putting thousands of new regulations in place and then has to hear from people like you and Daugherty that we live in an ‘era of dregulation’?

Last week Mother Nature shut down Washington’s government offices for a day, but the extreme weather was no match for federal regulators.

Over that time period, 1,516 new pages and 56 additional final regulations were published in the Federal Register, according to the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Broken down, that is the equivalent of a new regulation added about every three hours.

We are only in the second month of 2014 and already the Federal Register has mushroomed to 9,079 pages. At this pace, the register will accumulate 73,218 pages by 2015. Shockingly, this would be the lowest total in five years.

Not all regulations are created equal — some are far more costly than others. So far this year there have been six final rules deemed “economically significant,” meaning they will have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. At this point, these six regulations have an estimated monetary impact of somewhere in between $614 million and $885 million. This figure will only continue to grow throughout the remaining months of 2014.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/government-adds-1516-pages-to-the-federal-register/#ixzz2zRIgdNQJ

Which corporation are writing those?

Your corporations have been banging the deregulation drum for so long with so much money and power behind them they have turned deregulation into a means to further the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. Deregulation means take advantage of the individual anymore IMHO Rhinehold.

I read this and then look at the data provided and have to just simply shake my head…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 20, 2014 11:09 AM
Comment #377994
No, they don’t.

Yes they do.

So, your ire lies in allowing collections of people to pool their money together and direct their money in coordinated fashion to get make their political views.

No my ire lies in business entities doing that.Corporations are in chartered as business entities not political organizations.

They are as much a governing body as Priorities USA, NAACP, ACLU,….

SO you cannot distinguish the difference between say a multi national corporation such as GE and these groups, no wonder your head hurts.

No, you actually didn’t. You made a couple of lame statements that meant pretty much nothing.

Refusing to acknowledge these statements as examples of inequality of opportunity Rhinehold, doesn’t make them “pretty much nothing” it shows us your inability to accept anything not coming from a libertarian source as valid, your loss.

In fact, the only ones actually arguing for true equality of opportunity in this country are the Libertarians.

Hahahaha ROFLMAO, good one Rhinehold, it kinda of exists so libertarians fight it, all other political persuasions cause it, right? Not partisan at all eh! To bad no laws or government doesn’t work in the real world.

Which corporation wrote the tax code that punishes companies and individuals for success?

I would venture to guess the same corporations that don’t pay taxes on their “success” or as it is normally referred to, their profits, due to loopholes in the code. GE for one.

Which corporation wrote the citizens with disabilities acts?

When was this passed into law? 1990? Have things changed sine then or have they not?

Which corporation are writing those?

I would suggest the same corporations that wrote the laws you referred to in your previous post Rhinehold. Do you think it is those individuals trying to get into business?

As far as the federal register rant who know what is factual considering the source probably considers any regulations to be excessive and anti liberty. However there is more to the registry than new rules and regs.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2014 11:51 PM
Comment #377999
Yes they do.

Again, no they don’t.

All corporations are are a legal way to pool assets and protect the individuals managing the corporation from having losses reach back into their personal finances.

That’s it.

You say that they are ‘treated as individuals’, please explain where and when.

No my ire lies in business entities doing that.Corporations are in chartered as business entities not political organizations.

And it is irrelevant. People don’t lose their 1st amendment political rights just because they are members of a corporation, I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that for some people.

MSNBC, TIME, The Wall Street Journal, all corporations, routinely tell people who to vote for. That’s ok, but if GE gives its recommendation on who to vote for, that destroys our society?

SO you cannot distinguish the difference between say a multi national corporation such as GE and these groups, no wonder your head hurts.

Yeah, because it is irrelevant, it is just a collection of people combining resources. That is it. The only difference, of course, is that you agree with the politics of one and not the other…

Funny that you would mention GE, btw, since they routinely get involved in politics through their TV shows through owning NBC. Valarie Jarrett recently explained how she is going to these TV and Movie makers and asking them to put political messages into their programming to indoctrinate people…

PACs were created as political organizations, GE has one btw. So they are ‘chartered as political organizations’ just like Unions, yet we hear that they are bad and should be done away with, etc…

What’s the difference between Priorities USA Action and GEPAC?

Why do you hate people who make money?

To bad no laws or government doesn’t work in the real world.

Not sure why this was dropped in here as libertarians are not advocating either no laws or no government.

What I don’t get is why anti-liberty people have to lie about another’s views in order to try to make some nonsensical point? Can’t debate the topics on their merits alone?

I would venture to guess the same corporations that don’t pay taxes on their “success” or as it is normally referred to, their profits, due to loopholes in the code. GE for one.

Another false accusation…

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

We emailed one of the story’s authors, Jeff Gerth of Pro Publica, a former investigative journalist with the New York Times, and asked him about Warren’s claim. Here’s what he wrote back:
Gerth, April 23: The fact is that GE’s tax returns are not public. The basis for the statement that they paid a small amount of taxes is the company’s official statements to the press. The basis for the NYT’s original report that they paid no taxes was a reading of their financial statements, which are not the same as their tax returns. I don’t know where Warren gets her facts from.

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for GE, told us via email that “there is a lot of misinformation out there about what we pay in taxes, but at the most basic level: we pay taxes and we did not get a refund.”

According to Williams, GE paid $1 billion in federal, state and local taxes in the U.S. for 2010. He declined to say how much of that was for federal income taxes, except to say that some of it was.

Williams also pointed to a company press release, from April 17, on taxes paid by GE. According to that release, GE paid an effective global tax rate of 7 percent in 2010, counting money paid “to the IRS and foreign counterparts” in other nations. That rate was particularly low, Williams said, because the company lost $32 billion in its financial business during the global financial crisis.

According to the company release, GE’s effective tax rate jumped to 29 percent in 2011. The company paid $2.9 billion in worldwide corporate income tax in 2011, and another $1 billion in other U.S. taxes that year, the release states.
We asked Williams how much of the $2.9 billion in worldwide corporate taxes was paid to the U.S. government, and how much the company paid in U.S. corporate income taxes in 2010. “Like virtually all other companies, we do not break out tax data on a country by country basis,” Williams said. “Instead, we disclose our worldwide payments and rates. However, we did pay federal income taxes.”

We’re not going to weigh in on Warren’s larger point about whether corporations like GE aren’t paying their fair share. That’s up to voters to decide. Again, the company has clearly been aggressive in reducing its tax burden through various tax credits and deductions created by the federal government (one example is clean energy incentives). It also has been creative in moving a good deal of its profits offshore. But Warren overreached with her claim that GE pays “zero” in taxes. The company does pay payroll taxes and local and state taxes. And GE says it also pays federal income taxes. How much? We don’t know, and GE isn’t saying. Nor is it required to.

Have things changed sine then or have they not?

Not substantially, no.

As far as the federal register rant who know what is factual considering the source probably considers any regulations to be excessive and anti liberty. However there is more to the registry than new rules and regs.

Hmmm, which business pushed these regulation through?

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/09/woman-sues-fda-over-sperm-donation-rules/

http://www.openmarket.org/2014/04/14/first-ever-constitutional-ruling-against-dodd-frank-voids-destructive-conflict-minerals-section/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/15/regulation-nation-breweries-fight-back-against-new-government-grain-rules/

Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

A new regulation requiring all new cars to have rearview cameras installed by 2018 garnered national attention last week, not least because it will add $132 to $142 to the cost of low-end cars; consumers on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are not happy. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates compliance costs of $546 million to $620 million.

The week’s other economically significant rule comes from OSHA, which issued new safety standards for electrical equipment. It will have compliance costs of $47.1 to $49.5 million. The rule meets the $100 million economically significant threshold because OSHA multiplied an arbitrary estimate of lives saved and an arbitrary dollar value for each of those lives, plus an estimated number of prevented injuries and an arbitrary dollar value for each injury. That pushes its estimated benefits to $179.2 million per year.

The FDA approved the use of spirulina extract as food coloring. Spirulina extract is dried cyanobacteria, and is popular among health food enthusiasts.

The lesser prairie-chicken is now a threatened species.
The Mazama pocket gopher is neither a threatened nor endangered species, but three of its subspecies are the unwitting recipients of more than 1,600 acres of critical habitat in Washington State.

In 2011, the federal government issued a Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order. As part of the Order, and also to make Adam Smith roll over in his grave, Christmas trees will now be taxed in order to increase demand for them.

Indeed, some businesses are convincing unwitting or un-knowledgeable representatives into supporting stupid regulations that are in place to help their businesses, but they are not alone in that, obviously, and others support regulations just to support political desires and power grabs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 21, 2014 9:51 AM
Comment #378000

Link for above list was cut off…

http://www.openmarket.org/2014/04/14/ceis-battered-business-bureau-the-week-in-regulation-110/

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 21, 2014 9:52 AM
Comment #378035

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-crisis-was-not-wasted-unfortunately-1066236-1.html

William Isaac on administration’s results on not letting a crisis go to waste.

As Humpty Dumpty asserts in Through the Looking Glass, “A word means just what I choose it to mean.” When Alice wonders how that can be, Humpty explains, “The question is who is to be master — that’s all.” Asset managers and insurance companies threatened with being branded as SIFIs now feel they are in a Through the Looking Glass world and are discovering the real question is: Who is to be master — that’s all.

Consider that Fannie Mae is bigger than JPMorgan Chase, but unbelievably, FSOC does not consider Fannie a SIFI. Freddie Mac is bigger than Citigroup, but neither is Freddie a SIFI. Unleveraged asset managers are probably SIFIs, we are told, but the infinitely leveraged Fannie and Freddie, which continue to distort the housing market and create potential liability for taxpayers, are not. The Federal Reserve, which has effectively become the biggest savings and loan in the world, with an unhedged $1 trillion long-term, fixed-rate mortgage portfolio, is more likely to generate systemic risk than a long-term funded insurance company is. But can FSOC admit that its own most important member is itself a massive SIFI?

Speaking of the Federal Reserve, its power has been greatly increased as a major bureaucratic winner in Dodd-Frank. It becomes a key regulator not only of bank holding companies, but of any company of any industry which gets the SIFI label (in addition to exchanges deemed “Systemically Important Financial Market Utilities”), whether the Fed knows anything about the business or not.

Thus the Fed, which utterly failed to recognize the housing bubble, which failed to anticipate the massive resulting bust, which failed to forecast the following steep recession, is going to tell SIFIs how to run their business. The credulity of Congress, when legislating in the wake of a crisis and applying Emanuel’s maxim, appears unlimited.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 22, 2014 11:36 AM
Comment #378051
Again, no they don’t.

Again, yes they do.

All corporations are are a legal way to pool assets and protect the individuals managing the corporation from having losses reach back into their personal finances.

That’s it.

But they are more Rhinehold. They are money machines for our elected representatives. They have, by twisting the intent of the 14th amendment, become citizen with rights on top of the rights of the individual that make up the corporations, and the shareholders who seem to have little rights when compared to CEO’s.

You group the little closely held corporations with the big multinational corporations and confuse the issue.

And it is irrelevant. People don’t lose their 1st amendment political rights just because they are members of a corporation, I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that for some people.

Exactly Rhinehold, they gain additional rights if they are at the top of the corporate food chain. It seems you cannot tell the difference between a person rights and the rights of the business entity they are part of.

Why do you hate people who make money?

Why do you use such foolish straw man arguments Rhinehold?

What I don’t get is why anti-liberty people have to lie about another’s views in order to try to make some nonsensical point? Can’t debate the topics on their merits alone?

“Anti Liberty” yet another straw man Rhinehold, why stoop so low? Lie about another’s view, seriously? A blanket condemnation of the federal register based upon number of pages, the constant listing of regulations condemned without any comment on merit! One straw man after another Rhinehold.

but they are not alone in that,…

Once again in tis thread Rhinehold you tell us “well they do it to” as the justification for any wrongs. The two wrongs make a right theory, partisan libertarianism at it’s best?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 23, 2014 9:08 PM
Comment #378053

Meanwhile the libertarians who support the Koch Bros must get a real laugh out of this “pro-liberty” gamesmanship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/west-virginia-voters-americans-for-prosperity_n_5198824.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Posted by: j2t2 at April 23, 2014 9:13 PM
Comment #378054
But they are more Rhinehold. They are money machines for our elected representatives.

Unlike the unions, the NAACP, the multitude of other PACs including the president’s own power and rich one… *sigh*

They have, by twisting the intent of the 14th amendment

How, EXACTLY, are they ‘twisting the intent of the 14th amendment’?

become citizen

No, they haven’t. Please show the proof that corporations are now ‘citizens’, and if so why they can’t vote or directly donate money to candidates?

with rights on top of the rights of the individual that make up the corporations

Name one of these ‘rights’

and the shareholders who seem to have little rights when compared to CEO’s.

Other than, say, voting in a new board that would fire the CEO in a second? You mean other than being in control of the company itself and being the CEO’s boss, right?

j2t2, Corporations do not have ‘rights’, nor are they citizens. I’ve asked more than once for you to explain to me what rights that corporations have and you haven’t been able to do so. Conspiracy theories are not a valid method of critical thought…

Exactly Rhinehold, they gain additional rights if they are at the top of the corporate food chain. It seems you cannot tell the difference between a person rights and the rights of the business entity they are part of.

WHAT ADDITIONAL RIGHTS?

Why do you use such foolish straw man arguments Rhinehold?

Don’t know, thought that was the method you were using… Corporations have rights, so we have to fight against them… whatever these ‘rights’ are…

Once again in tis thread Rhinehold you tell us “well they do it to” as the justification for any wrongs.

They aren’t ‘wrongs’, j2t2, they are the nature of giving the government too much power. The people you like will use it and the people you don’t like will use it. The problem is not who the wielder is, it is that the power exists to begin with. That’s the point you refuse to get.

Meanwhile the libertarians who support the Koch Bros must get a real laugh out of this “pro-liberty” gamesmanship.

For someone decrying ‘straw men’ you sure know how to build them, don’t you?

Apparently you have no comprehension between defending someone’s right to speak and supporting everything they do…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 24, 2014 12:07 AM
Comment #378055
“Anti Liberty” yet another straw man Rhinehold, why stoop so low? Lie about another’s view, seriously?

SO, tell me j2t2, are you for liberty or agin liberty? When I bring up the liberty views of the founding fathers, you tell me they aren’t relevant anymore, that we have ‘moved past it’ and I have yet to see you ever once defend someone’s liberty here, other than allowing women to have abortions. You even want to 1st amendment rights, 2nd amendment rights, 9th amendment rights, 10th amendment rights, etc…

Do you even understand what liberty is? How do you expect people to not see you as a statist (anti-liberty) and rather one who embraces liberty when you support an anti-liberty viewpoint?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 24, 2014 12:19 AM
Comment #378077
SO, tell me j2t2, are you for liberty or agin liberty?

Rhinehold, Depends on whose version of liberty you are using when you ask that question. Cliven Bundy’s? who tells us the federal government doesn’t exist and has armed followers keeping feds off of federal land whilst asking if blacks wouldn’t be better off as slaves? If that is what you call liberty, no thanks Rhinehold.

When I bring up the liberty views of the founding fathers, you tell me they aren’t relevant anymore, that we have ‘moved past it’

On occasion yes, but lets remember that you usually bring up the “liberty views” of the founding fathers before and during the revolution not afterwards when they were actually running the country. Who was it that was president when it was decided the articles of confederation didn’t work when it came to running a government? Why did the rich guys not let Shay have his rebellion?

and I have yet to see you ever once defend someone’s liberty here, other than allowing women to have abortions.

You just don’t read what it is I say then Rhinehold. First of all I am pro choice not pro abortion, secondly you missed much as I have been against the Patriot Act from the beginning and prefer to see all of us have rights not just some of us, just because I don’t believe money is the equivalent of free speech doesn’t mean I am against free speech. I often rant against the corporate media that inhibits free speech and spreads propaganda. But lets remember Rhinehold the framing of the issue as being “pro-liberty” or “anti-liberty” is as much a corporate media propaganda bit as anything I have seen lately. Waving the American Flag (made in China) doesn’t impress me as liberty, neither does being against almost every law, rule and regulation.

You even want to 1st amendment rights, 2nd amendment rights, 9th amendment rights, 10th amendment rights, etc…

I assume you left out the word “defend” ;)

Do you even understand what liberty is? How do you expect people to not see you as a statist (anti-liberty) and rather one who embraces liberty when you support an anti-liberty viewpoint?

It seems to me the founding fathers had a revolution to set up a government based upon the principle “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” as a means of protecting our liberties. Now we get these crazies from the far right that tell us we are anti liberty (“statist”) for wanting anything to do with government. For acknowledging the existence of the federal government. For wanting to make sure our form of government work as designed. (Then these same crazies get elected and prove government is the problem. But it is the problem they created that is the real problem.)

So when you make these claims that I support an anti-liberty viewpoint I hope you can understand that I consider these comments drivel. Why? Because the Libertarians, and more so the far right conservatives, tea party and others have twisted the logic out of the meaning of the words, telling us liberty means no government,(the strong over the weak, dog eat dog and only the strong survive), and use the founding fathers as a tool to lead us farther and farther into a far right plutocracy/ corpocracy/ fascist country based upon capitalism not democracy.

I prefer liberty for all Rhinehold, I think in most cases you do to, and by all I do mean with liberty and justice for all of us. So the original constitution didn’t get that far as the landed aristocracy held to much power to let that happen. Hell slavery in the land of the free, what kinda logic is that? It was a start, a good start but on occasion I don’t agree with the founding fathers.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2014 7:23 PM
Comment #378138

air jordans
timberland shoes
kate spade outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet store online
ugg boots
coach outlet
coach outlet
oakley sunglasses
fendi belt
nike shoes
ferragamo-outlet.org
ray ban sunglasses
moncler jackets
kate spade handbags
barbour
nike free run 3
tory burch shoes
nike outlet
juicy couture
canada goose
juicy couture
marc jacobs
cheap hollister clothing
hogan shoes
coach factory outlet
belstaff-inc.net
chi hair straighteners
dior outlet
true religion outlet
michael kors
bottega veneta handbags
moncler jackets
christian louboitin
ralph lauren outlet
dior handbags
louis vuitton
ran ban outlet
ghd hair straighteners
michael kors outlet
christian louboitin
michael kors handbags
moncler jackets
hermes belts
dior handbags
hermes birkin bag
tory burch outlet
cheap nfl jerseys
beats by dr dre
michael kors outlet
insanity workout dvd
cheap ray ban sunglasses
true religion jeans
ferragamooutletinc.net
dolce & gabbana handbags
true religion jeans
p95x workout
tory burch
belstaff jackets
timberland outlet
michael kors outlet
celine outlet store
jimmy choo shoes
gucci outlet
moncler jackets
belstaff-inc.com
oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses
ugg boots
juicy couture
dior handbags
nike free 5.0
beats by dr dre
michael kors
cheap oakley sunglasses
beats by dr dre
spura shoes
ferragamooutletinc.com
cheap jordans
michael kors outlet
cheap jordans
coach factory online
jordan 11
abercrombie & fitch
tory burch sale
dolce & gabbana handbags
alexander wang handbags
tory burch
cheap jerseys
gucci purses
miu miu handags
kate spade handbags
hermes birkin handbag
louis vuitton outlet
givenchy handbags
tory burch
cheap jordans
christian louboitin
dolce & gabbana handbags
abercrombie & fitch
michael kors
louis vuitton
nike free run
barbour
michael kors bags
dolce & gabbana handbags
christian louboitin
the north face outlet
tiffany jewelry
burberry outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
nike outlet
timberland shoes
kate spade outlet
nike free run shoes
ugg boots
ferragamos.org
cheap coach purses
dolce & gabbana handbags
louis vuitton
cheap jordans
tory burch shoes
abercrombie & fitch
canada goose
tory burch
canada goose
spyder jackets
burberry handbags
coach purses outlet
tiffany and co
fitflop shoes
coach factory outlet
spura shoes
true religion jeans
dior handbags
timberland outlet
spura shoes
beats by dr dre
beats by dr dre
jordan 13
fitflop footwear
juicy couture
nike shoes
kate spade
gucci shoes
spura shoes
dior outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap ugg boots
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
dolce & gabbana handbags
kate spade handbags
spura shoes
barbour
tory burch outlet
canada goose outlet
michael kors
cheap jordans
louis vuitton
belstaff
supra shoes
timberland outlet
mulberry handbags
coach store online
spyder jackets
nike free shoes
ferragamos.net
nike free run 5.0
mont blanc
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
prada outlet
marc jacobs handbags
michael kors watches
gucci handbags
spyder jackets
louboutin outlet
spyder jackets
oakley sunglasses outlet
moncler jackets
coach outlet store online
guess handbags
true religion outlet
louis vuitton outlet
cheap jerseys
fitflop sandals
juicy couture
jordan shoes
nike outlet
timberland outlet
chanel handbags
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
belstaff
michael kors outlet
michael kors
canada goose
beats by dr dre
versace sunglasses
toms outlet
hollister clothing store
coach store online
barbour
louis vuitton outlet
belstaff-jackets.net
louis vuitton outlet
abercrombie & fitch
spyder-inc.net
abercrombie & fitch
toms shoes
michael kors handbags
michael kors
moncler jackets
louis vuitton outlet
cheap jordans
coach factory outlet
canada goose
michael kors factory outlet
ferragamo belt
barbour
tory burch
juicy couture
toms shoes
turbo fire dvd
spyder-inc.com
celine bags
christian louboitin
barbour

Posted by: cai80 at April 27, 2014 10:25 PM
Comment #378197

1937 - the cocoa - Chanel (Coco Chanel). This fashion legend females with a double C shocked the world when she was 54 years old, wearing a little black dress studio in Paris. In fact, the black has been the cocoa - Chanel favorite color, she once said: a woman’s eyes in a variety of colors, just do not pay attention to the so-called non color. Black can accommodate all color, white is the. They all have a pure. Christian Louboutin Ankle Boots Perfect and harmonious. Wear white or black clothes woman, is always the most popular beauty danceChristian Louboutin Toe Booties .
1930 - Jean Harlow1930 - Jean Harlow (Jean Harlow), Jean Harlow blonde image has the significance of film history, Christian Louboutin 2013 before her Hollywood sexy mostly black brunet, such as the famous period of silent film actress Louis Brooks, Red Bottom Shoes Baolanigela. After reading this piece of small series have to say, the wine is Chen Hong, the more long time little more flavor, with beauty star Jean Harlow, in addition to the “invincible” and “stunning” such word, you’ll never get any praise language can describe.
1946 - Rita - Hayworth (Rita Hayworth), louboutin shoes exquisite retro wave, willow bend eyebrow, tight black dress, skirt the chest is made cone shape very popular at that time, the key is with long black gloves are in placeWholesale louboutin sale

In 1950 August Marilyn Monro (Marilyn Monroe) in the movie “static” yelan people not wearing a classic little black dress, bare sexy shoulders. Designer Iphones Cases 1959 - Marilyn - Monroe (Marilyn Monroe) in the little black dress in the film “Like It Hot” passion for performing. Monroe and in the center of your heart and my heart sexy status still made a legend, needless to say, the more beautiful iphone accessories skirts are significant excess in her body, only a simple to the extreme of the little black dress.
1961 - Audrey Hepburn (Audrey Hepburn), Christian Louboutin
iPhone/iPad Case
the originator of the little black dress, is the “Holly Golightly of Breakfast At Tiffany” held the red Givenchy, Chanel iPhone/iPad Case also held the red black dress. So far the world stars in the imitated Hepburn year, can makeup easy to imitate, beauty finds it difficult to get, and ipad accesories excellent cosmetic technology is still unable to imitate the Hepburn from the inside out exudes elegance.

Posted by: cheap soccer cleats at May 5, 2014 10:20 AM
Post a comment