RE: How irresponsible is this.

RE: How irresponsible is this. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwird -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: well regulated free market if it is "well regulated", then it ain't free, now is it. This is one of the problems with political discourse with amateurs, they don't actually understand the terms they misuse. Good lord, if you don't understand that any completely unregulated market inevitably leads to to oligarchy, at least, if not then proceeding to monopoly, either of which restricts freedom of any sort for buyers/'consumers,' not to mention workers .... It might be the case that some department at the Uni should re-assess their terminology.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:22:49 PM)
I said nothing of the sort one way or another, I simply pointed out the internal contradiction of a "well regulated free market"

Edwird -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:28:06 PM)
I can buy that. You have a point, as regards matter of logic.

Termyn8or -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:44:11 PM)
How about regulating the banks ? T^T

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:46:59 PM)
We did up here and thus avoided the worst effects of the big melt down

DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The Taliban regime was attacked because it wouldn't give up bin Laden and al Qaeda. Not quite true. They offered to give him up several times https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/20/newly-disclosed-documents-shed-more-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482 The US had been saying hand him over for 3 years prior to 9/11. The Taliban had been saying, we'll hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (it doesn't matter what their conditions were for this conversation). The US said, no, give him to us. The Taliban said, we'll hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (the conditions still don't matter). The US warns the Taliban that they would be held responsible if any terrorists they are harboring commit acts of terrorism against the US (the Taliban had been warning the US that al Qaeda was likely to strike at the US). After the attacks, the Taliban said they'd hand him over to a third-party country, if blah blah blah (still don't matter). None of that constitutes the Taliban giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Edwird -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:51:34 PM)
But I still think that political science degrees should have as requirement two semesters of economics as core studies. I mean, poli sci majors proclaiming or insisting that the the rest of the world be held to their own standards of 'logic' is quite the larfe, to be honest.

DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 4:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms. Bullshit. Ho Chi Minh offered to make Vietnam a US protectorate to get the French out but the US declined and backed the French, which drove him into turning to the Soviets for help in liberating his country. Hell Ho approched Wilson in 1919 to try get his country's freedom from colonialism but was shut down. You missed my point. Let me quote what I said and see if I can explain what I meant: quote: We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms. Probably was neither right nor worth it, but that's why we went in. It definitely wasn't in response to an imminent threat to the US, nor an attack on the US. I should have put quotes around the first sentence, as that was the given reasoning for why the US went into 'Nam. My next sentence, that going to war to "halt the scourge of Communism," probably wasn't right (as in correct). That is, we didn't need to do that to protect our freedoms. And, the last sentence is where I show that there were no real, solid reasons for us going to war in 'Nam.

DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Not quite. Actually the US did invade Afghanistan to wipe out Al Qeuada and its supporters to 'win the war against terrorism.' And..... .....it was illegal under all international law and under treaty we signed with the UN. The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false. This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal. Then after we attacked... Bush eventually calls on the Taliban regime to "deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaeda who hide in your land," or share in their fate. Thus changing the rational for the war as then the Taliban could 'suffer their fate.' HERE The country of Afghanistan wasn't the target of our attacks. We weren't really "at war" with Afghanistan. We were at war with the Taliban, and al Qaeda. There is quite a difference. quote: Oh and the gov. was very typically irresponsible as hell. It is incitment to violence, even riot IF HRC is elected. Verging on traitorous. Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:08:27 PM)
quote: Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort. That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever

DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort. That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever Considering it wasn't an incitement to violence, it's not a lame excuse at all.

MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: well regulated free market if it is "well regulated", then it ain't free, now is it. This is one of the problems with political discourse with amateurs, they don't actually understand the terms they misuse. A market most certainly can be well regulated and still be a free market. If in fact you do your research, you will find quite a number of regulations on business in general and the corporation specifically, from the early 19th century for example, that still left a very free market and for all participants who chose to risk their capital and their labor. So I have not misused any terms. As for being amateur, by a strict definition, I am no longer being paid for my consul on such matters but hazard a guess that I know one hell of a lot more than you think I do and just maybe...than you do as exemplified for example, you saying that for a market to be regulated, by definition means...its no longer free. Such a statement is inaccurate prima facie. We can agree it would seem on this much, free market/capitalism is the oxymoron of our times.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:23:56 PM)
LOL Yes dear, whatever you say.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:30:56 PM)
Nope.

MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:47:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: profiteering corporatism and an outright abandonment of the manufacturing economy in the US quote: a for profit culture allowed to flourish under both right and left but protected or even enriched by protecting the minority (business political power) in the halls of govt. quote: top heavy society All natural and all-but-inevitable outcomes of a capitalist system How about you investigate the capitalist systems in Germany or Norway or Denmark or Sweden et al. if you want to make pretense of having a clue? OTOH, you are welcome to allude to any communist-run country that has done better than them. I must be missing your point if you have one. I am sure there may be some of what is described as market barriers (created by govt. too) in those countries but almost all of our discourse from certain parties everywhere, has informed that [they] are rather socialist in nature and all too often, only because those economies are charged with serving society at large. And while one could as easily argue they are not true socialist countries meaning that those govts. do not own the means of production and they would be correct, those examples of European capitalism operate more of a mixed economy that has performed as well and in many aspects, better than the American economy. If one was to investigate those countries, one would find a much greater participation rate of labor (the people/society) in management, training, taxing, capital allocation together with hiring and firing policies and practices. In fact, they have shown a willingness and even created legal conditions that to extent they are in fact capitalist economies, they are performing quite well in serving almost all of society as opposed to say, American capitalism that need not at all, operating under a regime and essentially a business culture that has a fiduciary responsibility...to merely use or forget society entirely. Communism is not a part of this discussion.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 5:58:22 PM)
Sorry, missed your comment. quote: How about you investigate the capitalist systems in Germany or Norway or Denmark or Sweden et al. if you want to make pretense of having a clue? Those are not actually capitalist economies, they are what is known as mixed economies. quote: OTOH, you are welcome to allude to any communist-run country that has done better than them. OK sure, just tell me the name of any communist run country and I will tell you

MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 6:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick LOL Yes dear, whatever you say. OK

MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 6:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Nope. Do you mean that you do not agree that free market/capitalism is an oxymoron ?

KrystallineKitty -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 6:19:09 PM)
The pure fact is that the end result of unregulated capitalism, will be slavery... Full stop! Why pay for what you can just take by force... And when you have a collective monopoly, who says you cant charge 110% of what they can afford, and just have them mortgage themselves into slavery... Free market, only exists while there is freedom on both sides of the supply and demand...

Termyn8or -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/14/2016 6:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Bullshit. There was no incitement to violence. There was incitement to stand up and share the conservative message. If the peaceful means don't work, then there might have to be violence. Isn't that how everything, pretty much works? Violence is the last resort. That's the lamest excuse for an inclement to violence ever Yeah last resort. The US says "you will have the leaders we choose and do what we say and sell us your natural resources for pennies on the dollar or we will attack you" And most countries will say "Fuck you". And then they get attacked. If you want to call that a "last resort" then go ahead, but it made enemies out of at least 50 % of the world so far and they're still working on it. And Hillary Clinton intends to step up the process. T^T

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625