kraychik

What's the point in even talking to you if I'm automatically slandered as a hater of people who suffer from a certain mental disorder simply because I disagree with you? My point is simple, it is ridiculous that we have begun to indulge the sick desires of certain people who suffer from a mental disorder by mutilating them and altering their genitalia. This is especially absurd considering they should be treated for this mental illness, and not have their sick desires served at the massive expense of the taxpayer. More broadly, the left (represented by you in this thread) clearly wants to move us into some sort of twisted post-gender society, where gender is now a cultural and not anatomical feature. And of course, the left seeks to force cultural change in its own interests, and redefine cultural associations with concepts like gender artificially rather than allowing them to flow organically. Nowadays, in the minds of the leftists, whether or not one if a male or female, a man or a woman, is now a subjective matter. Of course this is untrue, but the left never allowed reality to interfere with its fantasies. Here is a hilarious (or disturbing, depending on your perception) example of the absurdity of the left in full effect: Bailey Named Director of BGLTQ Student Life This lady (or "it", as she/he/it prefers not to be described with a gender-indicative pronoun) was apparently upset that the original article referred to her as "she". Thankfully, a newly corrected version of the original article was then posted, with no gender-indicative pronouns used in reference to the lady (or whatever she/he/it is or wants to be). The correction is here: Harvard Picks First BGLTQ Director An earlier version of this article used the pronoun "she" to refer to Vanidy "Van" Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun. She probably has a really nice salary for a nonsense position. Perhaps she can become an advisor to Obama for BGLTQXYZ affairs? Lastly, and sincerely, thank you for exposing the inability of the left in actually engaging in serious argumentation. Please continue to call me a hater of every group you pretend to be a defender of (although they never asked for your defence). All your insults do is reveal the left for what it is.

What difference does it make whether or not a person loses their job due to increased technological innovation (an ATM, for instance), or whether it's outcourced to another country due to cheaper operation costs (i.e. manufacturing being shipped to China)? Your Marxist argument is the same in either case, you are claiming that business interests are contrary to the interests of "the worker". This is straight up Marxism, and reveals your lack of understanding of basic economics. I don't begrudge you for this, as this sort of ignorance is common. It's not like basic economics is standard curriculum in high schools, you have to go out of your way to learn this and understand this, unforuntately. This is all about the left and the right. You are parroting the Marxist narrative of economics, where the government is required to manage elements of the economy because of this imaginary conflict between business (capitalist) and worker (proletariat) interests. As far as Hershey goes, what business is it of mine, or the government's, how he chose to run his private operations? If he wanted to spend more money for whatever reason, that's on him. It is not him who is the leftist, but it's you who is one inch away from openly stating what you want government intervention to manage the economy because business will inevitably crush the worker. You Marxist narrative continues below... Thank you for openly stating that you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine and false historical, political, and economic narratives of class warfare. Now we have you on the record, if you weren't on the record before. Of course, the "media owned by the wealthy" never suggests that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea, right? Here is one of endless examples of leftist media outlets parroting the "eat the rich" narrative. Norah O'Donnell from CBS states that a tax cut, I repeat, a tax cut would cost taxpayers $850 billion over the next ten years. Bizarrely, CBS’s O’Donnell Cites ‘Cost to Taxpayers’ of Maintaining Current Income Tax Rates Although one of many examples, Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, is a known Democrat and Obama bundler. Same goes for CNN's founder Ted Turner. And on and on and on and on. And what is Obama's economic policy? Tax the rich. This is 100% pure not-from-concentrate Marxism. Straight up class warfare. Hilariously, over 50% of Americans don't pay a federal income tax, and America's tax system is in fact more progressive than Canada's. Let me translate that for you into easy English, America's top tier of income earners shoulder a greater portion of the total income tax burden (both federal and state, where applicable) than their equivalents in Canada. Despite this, Marxists like yourself who pretend to be conservatives still believe in this fantasy about "tax cuts" for "the wealthy" and them not "paying their fair share". Absolutely ridiculous. It's not about "the American worker" and it's not about "big business". It's about the market determining these outcomes free from the encumbrance of economic illiterates like yourself who think you can outthink the market, which is essentially the collective wisdom of all the millions of people in Canada and the USA making decisions every second of every day in their own best interests. We have no obligation to preserve redundant jobs simply because it belongs to this beloved class of the the proletariat American worker. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but unfortunately you've bought into the class warfare narrative. Here is a great video where Reagan shatters the Marxist narrative that you're parroting. Fast forward to 21:30 to get to the part I'm talking about. There's no such thing as a free lunch, which is an economic principle you don't understand. Raised costs on "the 1%" (another Marxist fantasy popularised by the recent OWS agitators) are simply passed onto everyone else in one way or another. What you don't understand is that the economy is like an ecosystem, we're all interconnected. When you start messing around with it, which is of course sometimes required, you mess with all of it. This is the endgame of the Marxist political prophecy. "The capitalist will sell you the rope with which you will hang him". You are channelling Lenin. It's hilarious that cybercoma described you as on the right of the political spectrum. Of course, cybercoma is a communist, so it sort of figures that anyone with a smidgen of conservatism in them, which you may have displayed once or twice, is automatically a "right-winger".

Hitler was a leftist. This demonstrates that you are a fake conservative. The same attitude criticised ATMs for displacing bank teller jobs, perhaps when the wheel was invented your ideological ancestors were cursing the loss of jobs for slave labourers. The principles of economics are the same today as they were in the 1950s. You expose your leftist ideology in that you don't understand free markets. Obama is parroting a Marxist narrative of this eternal conflict between various arbitrarily-defined classes of people. It's class warfare dressed up as "reasonable management of free markets". Business prefers whatever is profitable, which more often than not creates jobs. You are still parroting a leftist narrative where certain policies constitute being "nice to the rich" at the expense of others. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since you are a fake conservative, however, you don't understand this. "Creating jobs" might as well mean creating useless bureaucracies to address some non-existent social ill which essentially serves as a taxpayer-funded employment agency. Not necessarily. Businesses cannot simply offer professionals a salary of $20K per year and expect to attract quality talent. In a competitive free market environment, salaries are commensurate to value. Free markets force businesses to pay appropriate salaries. It is in the best interests of the business to attract the best talent it can afford, and this drives up the cost of labour as the skills and experience of the worker rises. How much will your Big Mac cost if every teenager working as McDonald's is being paid a $100K salary with benefits including breast implant surgery? The market will determine these things, not the direction of political masterminds like Obama.

Thank you for the insult.

Here is leftist Washington Post giving the Obama narrative three out of a possible of four Pinnochios, describing it as a deceitful narrative. Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal? The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here. Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

Here's John King in another video breaking through the false innuendo from the Obama campaign, as well as shattering the illusions of guyser who believes that all executives have direct involvement with the management of their respective organisations. John King quotes one of the former Bain Capital executives, "Steve Pagliuca (a current Bain official) says the Boston Globe report and what the Obama campaign is saying now is simply untrue. Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics. He was had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm, or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

You just contradicted yourself. In your earlier post you stated, incorrectly I should add, that all executives are directly involved in the regular affairs of their respective organisations. I indicated that I know people personally who sit on executive boards of organisations who have had no meaningful involvement with their respective organisations for years. Your response was to call me a liar. Yet here you are, now conceding that Romney was, "for all intents and purposes gone". Which is it? Was he attending regular meetings and playing a meaningful role in the direction of Bain Capital as you stated all executives do, or was he really "gone" from Rain Capital after his departure in February 1999 to work on the Olympics? The false innuendo from the Obama campaign is that Romney was directly involved with operations that were associated with outsourcing of jobs from America. This is clearly untrue, and the narrative you are subscribing to due to your compulsion to disagree with me. The truth is Romney had no meaningful relationship with Bain Capital after his departure in 1999, and had to stay on board as the CEO due to legalities. This has been confirmed many times, and most recently via communications John King has had with four Bain Capital executives (three of whom are Democrats and two of whom are actively supporting Obama's 2012 campaign) who have stated that Obama's campaign is dead wrong on this. The video is posted above. Thank you for exposing the left.

It's just another example of leftists wishing for masterminds like Mulcair to direct our economy. They are able to point to an economic phenomenon of the rising value of the Canadian dollars, which benefits many Canadians, and portray this as an evil that must be removed to protect a certain group of folks involved in exports. This is the leftist mentality, where they believe that centralised planning can outthink and outperform the hundreds of millions of freely associated individuals in the economy (both inside and outside of Canada, of course). Somehow coercive measures to punish the oil industry, killing jobs, driving up costs Canadians, and placing more control in the hands of the government is a good idea. This is grounded in the leftist's inherent distrust of free markets. Markets must be controlled by super-smart and benevolent masterminds like Mulcair who know more than we can ever possibly dream of, and who are motivated by a righteous selfless calling to the public service.

Thank you for the personal attack.

I won't go into personal details, but as I've said, I know people who sit on executive boards who've had no substantial involvement with the relevant organisations for years. Whether or not you understand this is not my problem. The same thing obviously took place with Romney after he left Bain Capital in February 1999 but remained the CEO until he was completely replaced due to legalities. As was already stated in the second paragraph of my opening post, four Bain Capital officials that John King directly communicated with confirmed Romney's story of him having no meaningful involvement with the first after his departure. It is not I who needs to grow up, as clearly you subscribe to a mythology of all executives of all organisations maintaining meaningful involvement with their respective organisations in all circumstances. This simply isn't the case. It's not the case with people I know personally, and it wasn't the case with Romney. What the Obama campaign is doing, without success, is hoping that enough Americans are ignorant enough to believe Romney's official status as CEO necessitates that he was still actively involved with the affairs of Bain Capital even after he left in February of 2009.

Perhaps the rules and guidelines of this forum should be enforced equally, and perhaps your profanity-laced posts should also be brought to the attention of the moderators.

I'm not sure Gladys was a common name in Soviet Union. I'm also not sure you grasped what type of lady DogOnPorch was referencing.

Perhaps I misjudged you. Still, all human beings have preferences. We have favourite foods, favourite music, a favourite climate, and so forth. I am unconcerned with a PM expressing a (presumably) sincere preference for his favourite city. A politician can easily maintain good ethics while personally preferring a specific city, or even province. Just as a judge can prefer a certain side in a trial on a personal level, but judge against that side in the interests of justice. What we should worry about is whether there is real political favouritism going on in the interests of corruption, which happens all the time with politicians. Consider Ontario's favouritism to Toronto as a current example.

He was the CEO, but not the lead guy. Those two things are not always one in the same. I realise that you don't understand this, although I've explained it in detail earlier. I know people who sit on executive boards of certain organisations (for instance, a charity) that they have virtually no involvement with. This can occur for various reasons, which you're obviously not interested in discussing honestly. So I'll leave it at that.

This is absolutely untrue. The lack of a coherent or cohesive Canadian identity is a function of recent decades, and a consequence of leftist policies. Primarily, this is due to "multiculturalism", which is tragically enshrined in Canada's core laws. As bush_cheney2004 has already said, this is by design.

You must've had some conversations with ex-pats from the Soviet Union to know about those old ladies who sat by the elevator with their eyes and ears open. The funny thing is that socialists like cybercoma don't even know what we're talking about, considering its a feature of the ideology he subscribes to.

Do you really think anyone in here believes your claim about "economists around the world", as if you follow such things? You're just making things up as you go along, and it's obvious. You have your (unsubstantiated) opinion on the matter, and want to dress it up with the preface of "economists around the world", when you can't even name three economists.

Well said. It is leftists that far more prone to fearing conservatives than the other way around, though. All we need to do is look at how they circle the wagons shortly after my arrival here calling for me to be censored/banned.

I'm pretty sure that comment of bush_cheney's was directed at the esteemed socialist (who is distressed by my presence and fears that I have disrupted some inertia on this board) known as cybercoma, not at me.

You're clearly not open to freedom of speech and expression considering that you have openly called for me to be censored (and perhaps banned), and you're trying to do your best to have others ignore me. As bush_cheney2004 has already said, I think forum participants can decide from themselves whether or not they want to have an exchange with me. What you do is expose the arrogance of the left, as well as the left's contempt for ordinary people. You don't want people making their own decisions, which is why you want me censored, or alternatively, you want others to ignore me. Unfortunately for you, forum participants here are individuals and free to make their own decisions. I understand that individualism is antithetical to your Borg-collective socialist worldview. Independence is to be feared and suppressed, not encouraged. I understand that this view is common among the left.

May I report these insults of yours, as well? I hope Charles Anthony isn't too upset with me sending him messages reporting bad behaviour from leftists on this forum. Perhaps what this forum needs is some suspensions of leftists, since it seems that the focus of banning has been on conservatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9c5SGj1ES8 Here Obama exposes his economic illiteracy. While being interviewed by fellow leftist Charlie Rose (who famously stated weeks before the election in November of 2008 with several other leftist pundits, including Tom Brokaw, that they didn't really know anything about Obama), Obama delivers the Marxist narrative of business interests (self-interest) not necessarily being in line with the greater good "creating jobs". What Obama clearly doesn't understand the creation of wealth and the benefit this delivers to society in broad terms. Obama in his own words: "...there are questions there (about Romney's professional record with Bain Capital) that have to be asked... was his focus creating jobs?" Since when do people go into business to create jobs? This is a perfect example of how the left doesn't understand elementary economics. Self-interest is the goal, and one of the beneficial externalities of self-interest in a free market economy is the creation of employment. "If you're the head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is make money, it's not to create jobs, it's not even to create successful businesses, it's to make sure you're maximizing returns for your investors". This is the Marxist narrative as pure as you're gonna get it from Obama. He continues on to talk about how his job is to "think about the workers", as if the interests of one group (the owners, the management, the investors, the capitalists) are diametrically opposed (to borrow a phrase from a Reagan speech in the early 80s) to the interests of the other (the workers, the labourers, the proletariat). Here are two hilarious exchanges between the clueless leftist pundits Brokaw and Rose, and two other folks that I mentioned earlier admitting they don't know anything about Obama a week before the election. What they do know, however, is that they're both gonna vote for him. The first video has Rose with two leftists from Newsweek, the second video is Rose with Brokaw admitting they don't really know anything about then presidential hopeful Barack Obama. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9341 Here is the gem of the second video: "I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is", says Charlie Rose, "professional journalist", a week before the 2008 election. "No, I don't know, either", replies Tom Brokaw, another "professional journalist", a week before the 2008 election. Earlier in the video, Brokaw states, "We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all." To that, Rose interjects, "Which is astonishing!". Again, these are two "professional journalists", openly stating they know nothing about Barack Obama, a week before the election in November of 2008. Nevermind any of that, Obama is still "a curious mind" according to Brokaw, and he'll vote for him anyways. It doesn't get any funnier than this.

The point is simple, and that is that Romney had no meaningful involvement with Bain Capital's operations after he left in February of 1999, although the Obama campaign is dishonestly stating otherwise. One of Obama's campaign spokespersons went so far as to imply that perhaps Romney is a felon, and that he lied to the SEC.

Yeah, how thankful we should all be that whether or not you're a male or female is now a matter of opinion and not anatomy. Are you a man that wants to be a woman? No problem, we'll mutilate you are the expense of the taxpayer, rearrange a few things, and you'll still be a man but you'll sort of look like a woman. Are you a senior who needs a knee replacement? Well, you can wait a year or two. We're busy indulging the mental disorders of individuals who are obsessed with their genitalia.

There's so much to unravel with this recent dishonest smear from Obama's campaign. Let's start with the campaign's coordination with friendly leftist news outlets (including CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, and the New York Times) to carpet bomb much of the mainstream media with the message of Romney being dishonest about his tenure with Bain Capital, citing an old Boston Globe article citing SEC filings that listen Romney as the CEO of Bain Capital until sometime in 2002, three years after Romney stated he left Bain Capital in 1999. What the leftists in the media are hoping is that their audience is ignorant about how certain people often sit on boards after their real work with the organisation is complete, for various reasons. In John King's own words after the 2:30 mark in the video, "they (the Romney campaign) say that he (Romney) left in February 1999, but it took almost two years to have the new management team put in place and that they are required by law until that new team is in place to list Mitt Romney. Is there any evidence, Anderson, that he had a hands-on role? No. I today have either spoken or communicated by email with four current or former Bain officials, three of these four are Democrats, two of them are active supporters of Obama in campaig n 2012. They were all there at the time. They say Mitt Romney left in a hurry in February 1999 to take over the Olympics, and he was never involved after that to their knowledge. Not at any meetings, not signing any documents, not involved in any deals. Again, three of these four are Democrats, they say what the Obama campaign is saying isn't true." What's great about this story is that the Obama campaign has spent tons of money parroting this lie in certain battleground states, and this strategy of lies has been a huge failure, as the needle hasn't moved in favour of Obama. So the Obama campaign just burned through a lot of money and coordination with its leftist media allies to no avail. Hopefully this is another sign of desperation from the Obama campaign, which it seems to be. More fundamentally, it shouldn't matter whether or not Romney was involved with Bain Capital during a time where their operations were associated with outsourcing jobs abroad. That's called capitalism, sometimes jobs are outsourced, and sometimes they're insourced. To run against that, which is a staple of the Obama campaign, is to run against capitalism. Obama is essentially running a campaign against free markets. What's also ironic is that Obama is essentially the outsourcer-in-chief, he was destroyed millions of jobs and sent billions overseas to chase the phantom of "green jobs" (much like Dalton McGuinty). He has no shame, however, in accusing a demonstrated creator of wealth as the killer or jobs. With the left, everything is always upside down.