(12-09-2014 04:14 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Being against crony capitalism should be bipartisan. But that requires a healthy skepticism if your own stupid little political team, which most people don't have.

The GOP is in bed with the military industrial complex. The Dems are in bed with big labor and big healthcare. They're both in bed with big banks.

I will admit that the dems are in bed with big corporate influences at times, but they are nowhere near as bad as the republicans when it comes to this stuff.

"If you say so." Notice you provide no evidence for your claims. Couple that with your previously demonstrated ignorance and it's pretty clear this is just you blabbering.

LOL it's pretty evident with GOP stances on less regulation, tax cuts for the rich, pro gun industry, & anti environmental regulations being the core of their party ideology.

There are some republican stances that I can actually agree with such as 2nd amendment & keeping gas prices down by helping big oil. But the positions the GOP takes on those two stances go well beyond "doing whats best for americans" and focuses on "what does what is best for oil & gun corporations"

You are a fool if you don't think the Democrats in Washington aren't every bit as much in the pocket of the monied interests. Those large corporations learned long ago that to get what they want, they all they have to do is buy off both groups.

Those you follow just lie to you about what they really care about. It's one of the biggest whopper lies going, but too many that vote "D" are too ignorant to know better.

Damn it's obvious you are young.

Sorry but IMO it's an entirely accurate statement. I agree 100% that both the Dems & Repubs are bad in this regard, but I see corporate influence having a much bigger influence with the GOP than the dems.

Simply put pro gun, anti environmental regulations, anti union, less taxes for business/rich, & less regulation are without a doubt topics where one side is backed by a major corporate industry, whereas the other side isn't. Right off the bat, naming 5 major conservative ideologies the Republicans are down by 5 scores. So now I ask you, how does taking this position look foolish with that in mind?

(12-09-2014 04:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  lol, you always resort to that joke talking point. besides the obvious issue of your generalizing an entire generation as one single group, then making a stereotype about said group....

joke? unlike you I actually provide support for my position.

Quote:This forum is clearly above you intelligence level if you need research or examples to verify that the GOP is pro gun, pro tax cuts for the rich, etc.

oic, we're all just supposed to accept your say so. curiously, that's exactly what I pointed out in that last post, and you bristled at.

But repeatedly you can't provide support for your position. your vaunted "education" is simply repeating what you heard from your (equally inept) teachers while doing your 8hr sit-ins each day.

Yes, I scoff at you and your inability to accomplish anything. But don't worry, that won't last forever. Eventually my son will do the same thing when he's your boss.

This is pointless. Your position is that my stating conservatives being pro gun is something that needs "support for my position." And you wonder why I've been a big advocate of this forum being in need of a fix in the past?

(12-09-2014 04:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:14 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I will admit that the dems are in bed with big corporate influences at times, but they are nowhere near as bad as the republicans when it comes to this stuff.

"If you say so." Notice you provide no evidence for your claims. Couple that with your previously demonstrated ignorance and it's pretty clear this is just you blabbering.

LOL it's pretty evident with GOP stances on less regulation, tax cuts for the rich, pro gun industry, & anti environmental regulations being the core of their party ideology.

There are some republican stances that I can actually agree with such as 2nd amendment & keeping gas prices down by helping big oil. But the positions the GOP takes on those two stances go well beyond "doing whats best for americans" and focuses on "what does what is best for oil & gun corporations"

You are a fool if you don't think the Democrats in Washington aren't every bit as much in the pocket of the monied interests. Those large corporations learned long ago that to get what they want, they all they have to do is buy off both groups.

Those you follow just lie to you about what they really care about. It's one of the biggest whopper lies going, but too many that vote "D" are too ignorant to know better.

Damn it's obvious you are young.

Sorry but IMO it's an entirely accurate statement. I agree 100% that both the Dems & Repubs are bad in this regard, but I see corporate influence having a much bigger influence with the GOP than the dems.

Simply put pro gun, anti environmental regulations, anti union, less taxes for business/rich, & less regulation are without a doubt topics where one side is backed by a major corporate industry, whereas the other side isn't. Right off the bat, naming 5 major conservative ideologies the Republicans are down by 5 scores. So now I ask you, how does taking this position look foolish with that in mind?

That would be where you are incorrect. Don't you find it interesting that the Wall Street boys funneled more money to Obama than Romney? They both have their "industries" that lean one way or the other - but they are ALL bought and paid for before they are sworn into office. THAT is why the system is broken.

Look at how much it costs to get elected to one of those slots - unless you start out filthy rich (and rich people rarely spend their own money) - you have to accept lots of money to get elected. The folks that write those big checks don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They purchase influence - the money isn't free, Republican or Democrat - period.

Don't be a fool and think otherwise just because they lie to you about what is MOST important to them...............................

(12-09-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Your position is that my stating conservatives being pro gun is something that needs "support for my position."

Not at all. That's your straw man. You say that makes "conservatives" support crony capitalism, but provide no evidence.

Quote:And you wonder why I've been a big advocate of this forum being in need of a fix in the past?

Your posts are the problem.

(12-09-2014 04:33 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Your position is that my stating conservatives being pro gun is something that needs "support for my position."

Not at all. That's your straw man. You say that makes "conservatives" support crony capitalism, but provide no evidence.

Quote:And you wonder why I've been a big advocate of this forum being in need of a fix in the past?

Your posts are the problem.

You asked for examples and I listed 5 different positions that conservatives take which can be described as clearly being pro-corporate. You couldn't make a rebuttal to that so you are focused on this "evidence" talking point. Those examples are evident that the GOP is more in bed with corporate interests than the dems.

So either you need evidence that the GOP is pro gun & anti union, or you do not have the mental capability to understand my perfectly valid point.

On this forum I've noticed a pattern with you that you always cry "you didn't provide anything to backup your claim" when I have clearly did. And it is so hypocritical especially considering that not once have you inserted anything whether it be reason, logic, examples, or evidence to show that the dems are equally as bad as the GOP.

So welcome to my ignore list because I have had enough of this hypocritical, low IQ, bullsh!t from you.

(12-09-2014 03:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  GTS I can why ISP/Fiber companies would want some laws or assurance, that if they come into a city/market area and
drop millions/billions, that government will not float bonds and undercut them. Sure there will times when small towns might need a boost or the ability to do this.

I could get that argument if the level of service wasn't craptastic 6 megabit DSL for an exorbitant price. The duopoly has intentionally sat back and rode the high margins of terrible service at high prices with no competition. They have not served that town, so the town has taken it upon themselves to do it themselves. Good on them.

(12-09-2014 03:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  GTS I can why ISP/Fiber companies would want some laws or assurance, that if they come into a city/market area and
drop millions/billions, that government will not float bonds and undercut them. Sure there will times when small towns might need a boost or the ability to do this.

Wouldn't that be a fair request after the company agrees to provide service to a community?

Demanding that the community not help themselves, with no obligation or even a timeline to provide service, is unreasonable. And any such requests should be ignored.

(12-09-2014 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  lol, you always resort to that joke talking point. besides the obvious issue of your generalizing an entire generation as one single group, then making a stereotype about said group....

This forum is clearly above you intelligence level if you need research or examples to verify that the GOP is pro gun, pro tax cuts for the rich, etc.

That's not an insult, thats just reality because that's ELI5 level stuff about US politics.

Or generalizing an entire political base and calling them the party of racist old white people. Yeah, that makes even MORE sense.

(12-09-2014 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  LOL it's pretty evident with GOP stances on less regulation, tax cuts for the rich, pro gun industry, & anti environmental regulations being the core of their party ideology.

lol, you always resort to that joke talking point. besides the obvious issue of your generalizing an entire generation as one single group, then making a stereotype about said group....

Interesting juxtaposition. You criticize joke talking points and generalizations in your next post after one filled with joke talking points and generalization.

And let's take your talking points in order:

Less regulation - Some regulations are good regulations, some regulations are bad or counterproductive regulations, and some regulations have no real impact except to secure jobs for regulators. So keep the good regulations, get rid of the bad regulations, and get rid of the make work for regulators regulations. That would be less regulation and that would be better regulation. The pro-regulation talking point seems to be that the crash of 2008 was caused by de-regulating the financial industry. Except it was never deregulated, it remained at all points one of the most heavily regulated sectors of our economy. And bad regulations and regulatory enforcement practices were primary causes of the crash.

Tax cuts for the rich - No, tax cuts for the upwardly mobile. I realize that's not as good a sound byte as tax cuts for the rich. But the truly rich don't give a damn about US taxes, particularly income taxes, because they're never going to pay them. The difference between the upwardly mobile and the truly rich is that the truly rich can and will find more tax-efficient ways of earning money. Most of them are overseas, which hurts our economy. The way to bring investment home is to make our doing business in the US super-competitive with the rest of the world, and that would create far more jobs than any government "stimulus" program could ever hope to touch. Ways to do that would include improving education and infrastructure to increase productivity, reducing our tax rates to world-competitive level, and getting rid of excessive and counter-productive regulations. You disagree? Fine, explain how you would do it.

Pro gun - Absolutely. Without the Second Amendment, all the rest are meaningless. And by the way, the Second Amendment is written in English, and well-established rules of English grammar that were in effect in 1787, and are still in effect today, provide that the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment does not in any way, shape, or form modify the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Environmental regulations - As a long time environmental attorney, I can assure you that most of our environmental regulatory scheme is far more about preserving jobs for environmental attorneys (like me), consultants, and bureaucrats than it is about actually protecting the environment. One of many disappointments that I have with the republican party is that there are a large number of free market environmental approaches that would do a much better job of preserving clean air, clean water, and endangered species than the rules and regulations we have in effect now, but republicans do not ever seem to put together a package of them in a bill. If it were up to me, I would vastly change our environmental regulatory philosophy, and in the process produce a vastly cleaner environment at lower cost. Quite frankly, doing so would have taken money out of my pocket, but the country and the environment would be better off.

(12-09-2014 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  LOL it's pretty evident with GOP stances on less regulation, tax cuts for the rich, pro gun industry, & anti environmental regulations being the core of their party ideology.

lol, you always resort to that joke talking point. besides the obvious issue of your generalizing an entire generation as one single group, then making a stereotype about said group....

Interesting juxtaposition. You criticize joke talking points and generalizations in your next post after one filled with joke talking points and generalizations.

And let's take your talking points in order:

Less regulation - Some regulations are good regulations, some regulations are bad or counterproductive regulations, and some regulations have no real impact except to secure jobs for regulators. So keep the good regulations, get rid of the bad regulations, and get rid of the make work for regulators regulations. That would be less regulation and that would be better regulation. The pro-regulation talking point seems to be that the crash of 2008 was caused by de-regulating the financial industry. Except it was never deregulated, it remained at all points one of the most heavily regulated sectors of our economy. And bad regulations and regulatory enforcement practices were primary causes of the crash.

Tax cuts for the rich - No, tax cuts for the upwardly mobile. I realize that's not as good a sound byte as tax cuts for the rich. But the truly rich don't give a damn about US taxes, particularly income taxes, because they're never going to pay them. The difference between the upwardly mobile and the truly rich is that the truly rich can and will find more tax-efficient ways of earning money. Most of them are overseas, which hurts our economy. The way to bring investment home is to make our doing business in the US super-competitive with the rest of the world, and that would create far more jobs than any government "stimulus" program could ever hope to touch. Ways to do that would include improving education and infrastructure to increase productivity, reducing our tax rates to world-competitive level, and getting rid of excessive and counter-productive regulations. You disagree? Fine, explain how you would do it.

Pro gun - Absolutely. Without the Second Amendment, all the rest are meaningless. And by the way, the Second Amendment is written in English, and well-established rules of English grammar that were in effect in 1787, and are still in effect today, provide that the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment does not in any way, shape, or form modify the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Environmental regulations - As a long time environmental attorney, I can assure you that most of our environmental regulatory scheme is far more about preserving jobs for environmental attorneys (like me), consultants, and bureaucrats than it is about actually protecting the environment. One of many disappointments that I have with the republican party is that there are a large number of free market environmental approaches that would do a much better job of preserving clean air, clean water, and endangered species than the rules and regulations we have in effect now, but republicans do not ever seem to put together a package of them in a bill. If it were up to me, I would vastly change our environmental regulatory philosophy, and in the process produce a vastly cleaner environment at lower cost. Quite frankly, doing so would have taken money out of my pocket, but the country and the environment would be better off.

Owl, gimmie a break. You are smarter than that. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is behind them, or examining the pros & cons of them. Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks their opinion is the correct. It doesn't matter what the opinion is in this argument, what does matter is whose opinions do corporations ultimately agree with. In all five of those examples conservative stances are heavily favored by corporations with opposition having little to no corporate support.

And that you simply can not deny. You can try to justify it, but you can't deny it.

(12-09-2014 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Owl, gimmie a break. You are smarter than that. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is behind them, or examining the pros & cons of them. Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks their opinion is the correct. It doesn't matter what the opinion is in this argument, what does matter is whose opinions do corporations ultimately agree with. In all five of those examples conservative stances are heavily favored by corporations with opposition having little to no corporate support.
And that you simply can not deny. You can try to justify it, but you can't deny it.

So, whether an idea is good or bad is less important than whether corporations support it? Really? Seriously? And by the way, there are corporations on both sides of every one of those issues.

Actually many large corporations prefer even more regulation. Drives up the barriers to entry for possible competitors. So that's counter to your position on at least two points.

And many truly rich people are find with raising income taxes on highly compensated individuals. Why? Because they don't pay them. The people who want to be rich pay them, and that's their competition.

So yes, I simply can deny it. Because it's not true. Sorry to rain on your talking point parade.

(12-09-2014 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Owl, gimmie a break. You are smarter than that. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is behind them, or examining the pros & cons of them. Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks their opinion is the correct. It doesn't matter what the opinion is in this argument, what does matter is whose opinions do corporations ultimately agree with. In all five of those examples conservative stances are heavily favored by corporations with opposition having little to no corporate support.
And that you simply can not deny. You can try to justify it, but you can't deny it.

So, whether an idea is good or bad is less important than whether corporations support it? Really? Seriously? And by the way, there are corporations on both sides of every one of those issues.

Actually many large corporations prefer even more regulation. Drives up the barriers to entry for possible competitors. So that's counter to your position on at least two points.

And many truly rich people are find with raising income taxes on highly compensated individuals. Why? Because they don't pay them. The people who want to be rich pay them, and that's their competition.

So yes, I simply can deny it. Because it's not true. Sorry to rain on your talking point parade.

Yes really, because whether an idea is good or bad comes down to personal opinion. Something we will never agree on. Neither of us is gonna convince the other to change their stance despite the other trying many times in the past.

The issue is not who is right or wrong. The issue is what side do the corporations side with. The answer for these five examples is conservatives and that is fact not opinion.

(12-09-2014 06:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The issue is not who is right or wrong. The issue is what side do the corporations side with. The answer for these five examples is conservatives and that is fact not opinion.

No, they don't. Except in talking point world.

'Environmental Attorneys' and "Regulators' and 'Politicians' are ALSO 'Corporations' in the sense of the topic. They produce a product and seek to sell that product. It never ceases to amaze me that some people HATE the people who sell them necessities like toilet paper and food that you can choose to purchase from any of a dozen sources, but love the people who sell them words on paper that you can't disagree with.

(12-09-2014 06:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The issue is not who is right or wrong. The issue is what side do the corporations side with. The answer for these five examples is conservatives and that is fact not opinion.

No, they don't. Except in talking point world.

Please do tell...

What major industry composed of numerous fortune 500 companies is staunchly anti 2nd amendment?

From my perspective your position is 100% wrong and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 easily proves that. A common sense legislation whose own real opposition talking point was that corporations would be hurt by the added lawsuits. Only 8 Republicans voted in favor of it, and just five democrats voted against it in both houses.

You have a Democratic issue going up against a Republican issue. The Dems support for the bill was entirely along social equality ideology whereas the Republicans position was about not hurting corporations.

It's pretty clear cut if you ask me. There was nothing radical about that bill. All it did was expand statue of limitations. And yet the vote was split nearly entirely along party lines

(12-09-2014 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The issue is not who is right or wrong. The issue is what side do the corporations side with. The answer for these five examples is conservatives and that is fact not opinion.

No, they don't. Except in talking point world.

Please do tell...

What major industry composed of numerous fortune 500 companies is staunchly anti 2nd amendment?

From my perspective your position is 100% wrong and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 easily proves that. A common sense legislation whose own real opposition talking point was that corporations would be hurt by the added lawsuits. Only 8 Republicans voted in favor of it, and just five democrats voted against it in both houses.

You have a Democratic issue going up against a Republican issue. The Dems support for the bill was entirely along social equality ideology whereas the Republicans position was about not hurting corporations.

It's pretty clear cut if you ask me. There was nothing radical about that bill. All it did was expand statue of limitations. And yet the vote was split nearly entirely along party lines

So one bill means everything? The fact that they take a certain position on one bill means that they take the equivalent position on every bill? Really?

The bill doesn't really do much for equal pay that isn't already in the law. What it does more than anything is give ambulance chasers a shiny new ambulance to chase. And lots of lawyers practice as professional corporations, so I suppose those corporations are in favor of it (or at least the plaintiffs' bar ones are).

(12-09-2014 07:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The issue is not who is right or wrong. The issue is what side do the corporations side with. The answer for these five examples is conservatives and that is fact not opinion.

No, they don't. Except in talking point world.

Please do tell...

What major industry composed of numerous fortune 500 companies is staunchly anti 2nd amendment?

From my perspective your position is 100% wrong and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 easily proves that. A common sense legislation whose own real opposition talking point was that corporations would be hurt by the added lawsuits. Only 8 Republicans voted in favor of it, and just five democrats voted against it in both houses.

You have a Democratic issue going up against a Republican issue. The Dems support for the bill was entirely along social equality ideology whereas the Republicans position was about not hurting corporations.

It's pretty clear cut if you ask me. There was nothing radical about that bill. All it did was expand statue of limitations. And yet the vote was split nearly entirely along party lines

So one bill means everything? The fact that they take a certain position on one bill means that they take the equivalent position on every bill? Really?

The bill doesn't really do much for equal pay that isn't already in the law. What it does more than anything is give ambulance chasers a shiny new ambulance to chase. And lots of lawyers practice as professional corporations, so I suppose those corporations are in favor of it (or at least the plaintiffs' bar ones are).

So a perfect example doesn't count because it's "just one bill" Really? Seriously?

BTW, there is no legitimate rebuttal to support opposing that bill other than being anti anything that would ever make corporations more prone to lawsuits. The concept that the bill should be blocked due to frivolous lawsuits is laughable. That bill does a lot for equal pay because before that bill the stature of limitations were not long enough.

(12-09-2014 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So a perfect example doesn't count because it's "just one bill" Really? Seriously?
BTW, there is no legitimate rebuttal to support opposing that bill other than being anti anything that would ever make corporations more prone to lawsuits. The concept that the bill should be blocked due to frivolous lawsuits is laughable. That bill does a lot for equal pay because before that bill the stature of limitations were not long enough.

I don't think you have a clue what you are saying there.
I think you just proved ALL my points.
I rest my case.

(12-09-2014 07:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So a perfect example doesn't count because it's "just one bill" Really? Seriously?
BTW, there is no legitimate rebuttal to support opposing that bill other than being anti anything that would ever make corporations more prone to lawsuits. The concept that the bill should be blocked due to frivolous lawsuits is laughable. That bill does a lot for equal pay because before that bill the stature of limitations were not long enough.

I don't think you have a clue what you are saying there.
I think you just proved ALL my points.
I rest my case.

Only losers of an argument resort to that type of comment.