These animals HAVE TO BE STOPPED

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, reason10 said:

 

 

You were warned this would happen decades ago but sneered at attempts to slow economic growth to a more sustainable level. It was too green or woke to you people and you were frightened by the prospect

You are DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL if you think somehow illegal aliens are the result of free market capitalism.

You are also DANGEROUSLY STUPID and uneducated.

 

Well they KIND OF are -  free market capitalism has created the highest standard of living (even for 'poor' people) and the greatest opportunity and best societies in history - of COURSE they're going to want to live somewhere like that. So - if Canada and the US weren't such amazing countries, then we wouldn't have the problem of so many people wanting to come here    So it's our fault for capitalism being so effective at creating stable wealthy societies.

It's not climate change, it's not 'they've outgrown their ecosystem' - it's that our model of financial freedom is amazing and they want in on it.

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

You are DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL if you think somehow illegal aliens are the result of free market capitalism.

I said the result of unsustainable free market capitalism. But for what it's worth communist economies are just as bad.

The difference is that capitalist economists, principled ones at least, should know better. Unfortunately people need to know better than to ignore them, the principled ones that is.

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I said the result of unsustainable free market capitalism. But for what it's worth communist economies are just as bad.

The difference is that capitalist economists, principled ones at least, should know better. Unfortunately people need to know better than to ignore them, the principled ones that is.

You're confusing an economic model with a political model.

While socialims requires gov't participation and is therefore a political AND economic model, capitalism is strictly economical.   it doesnt' "know better" because that's not it's job.  That's the job of gov't.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

capitalism is strictly economical.

Then why do we need corporate lobbyists?

And more to the point, why do they need to be entertained?

Edited December 6, 2023 by eyeball

[reason10]

Well they KIND OF are -  free market capitalism has created the highest standard of living (even for 'poor' people) and the greatest opportunity and best societies in history - of COURSE they're going to want to live somewhere like that.

Actually, the WHOLE WORLD wants to in this free market capitalist place. Everyone wants the American model. And there is a line to get in. Those who wait in line are more then welcome to live here. The rest, those who try to break the line, are criminals and should be sent back to the shitholes that spewed them.

Ever notice how idi0ts who don't know how to think will throw lies like "Climate Change" in your face when they are at a loss for anything intelligent to say?

[reason10]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

The difference is that capitalist economists, principled ones at least, should know better. Unfortunately people need to know better than to ignore them, the principled ones that is.

I said the result of unsustainable free market capitalism. But for what it's worth communist economies are just as bad.

It's that idi0tic word "sustainable" that leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. That was one of  Obama's favorite adjectives and he was likely the dumbest president in history.

A river is unsustainable. Rain is unsustainable. The oceans are unsustainable. Capitalism is a force of nature, just like the nature elements that left wingers are stupid enough to think humans are able to somehow control.

Capitalism is unsustainable because the concept doesn't apply. It's like suggesting a hound dog can learn to play the violin. Capitalism, (and for that matter, macro and microeconomics) are the modern science of human behavior. It's no accident that the most brilliant book on Economics of all time is titled "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises. 

https://mises.org/library/human-action-0

If the colleges included  that text in their economics studies curriculum, they wouldn't be vomiting so many dumbasses like AOC, who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.

[reason10]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Then why do we need corporate lobbyists?

And more to the point, why do they need to be entertained?

Finally, a couple of intelligent questions.

WE don't need corporate lobbyists, as a nation. Corporate lobbyists do not exist as a service to the country. They exist as a way of deep pockets buying off politicians. Look at how rich that Nazi bitcch Pelosi has gotten, since the companies with business before the House have handed her enough insider trading deals for her to be a multi billionaire, even on a Speaker's salary.

Private citizen Donald Trump paid off Hitlary KKKlinton with campaign donations to keep her off his back and away from his company.  And because Congress won't enforce the laws against trying to buy off elected officials, corporate lobbyists are going to be with us forever.

(Personally, I'd change the laws so that they would be more strictly enforced with harsher penalties, just to watch those lobbying firms have to shut down, and those lobbyists have to look for real jobs.)

Entertained?

That brings us to tax law. A business taking someone out to dinner, drinks, maybe a hooker if it's in Nevada, all those expenses come under the heading of "ENTERTAINMENT." Different set of standards than the average tax filer who is is taxed too much and cannot afford the accountants to help write off those expenses.

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Then why do we need corporate lobbyists?

What do you mean "then why"?  It's BECAUSE OF that we need them. They are the laisons between the fiscal world of capitalism and the corporate world. If capitalism was a governance model as well as economic (such as communism is) then there would be no lobbyists.

Quote

And more to the point, why do they need to be entertained?

Everybody needs to be entertained They have gov't to entertain them, I have you to entertain me

Govt has it's own goals and motives. Capitalistic entitites have their own goals and motives. This is the negotiation between the two.  Surely that's a simple enough concept.

[eyeball]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:50 PM, CdnFox said:

Everybody needs to be entertained They have gov't to entertain them, I have you to entertain me

en·ter·tain

give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Not hookers and coke

Quote

What do you mean "then why"?  It's BECAUSE OF that we need them. They are the laisons between the fiscal world of capitalism and the corporate world.

Yes I'm sure capitalists babble amongst themselves all the time on how to further their interests.

Quote

Govt has it's own goals and motives. Capitalistic entitites have their own goals and motives. This is the negotiation between the two.  Surely that's a simple enough concept.

Not compared to the simpler concept you introduced when saying capitalism is strictly economical. Why the need for any negotiation between capitalism and government when you've made it clear it's only required for socialism.

While socialims requires gov't participation and is therefore a political AND economic model, capitalism is strictly economical.

Why do capitalists or corporations need to lobby anyone outside their own circle? 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

en·ter·tain

give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Not hookers and coke

They may be using a different dictionary.  Also - does that mean you're going to get me some hookers and coke?

Quote

Yes I'm sure capitalists babble amongst themselves all the time on how to further their interests.

All people everywhere babble amongst themsevles about how to further their interests.  Are you claiming you've never spoken to others like yourself about how your interests may be furthered?

But - if you want to talk to a DIFFERENT group, sometimes you need a laison. That's basically what lobbyists are.

Quote

Not compared to the simpler concept you introduced when saying capitalism is strictly economical. Why the need for any negotiation between capitalism and government when you've made it clear it's only required for socialism.

It's only afternoon and your english skills are already starting to fail. (flail?)  You got it backwards.  Capitalism is an economic entity seperate from governance, so there has to be a bridge between them. Socialism marries economy and governance so there doesn't need to be bridge, they're part and parcel of the same thing.

And yes that is pretty simple so why the hell are you screwing it up?

Quote

While socialims requires gov't participation and is therefore a political AND economic model, capitalism is strictly economical.

Yes - a clear and simple sentance. And yet somehow you got it wrong.

 

Quote

Why do capitalists or corporations need to lobby anyone outside their own circle? 

Because things outside their circle exist and impact them. So they have to have communication. IF the gov't and the economic model are the same thing then they're both part of the SAME circle and there's no need.

This is stuff an elementary school student gets. Why are you struggling with it?  When there's two seperate groups with seperate interests that influence each other in some way then there needs to be communication and 'lobbyists' is one way to achieve that in this case.

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is stuff an elementary school student gets. Why are you struggling with it? 

I'm not warning my time struggling with a bunch of hooey.

The only struggle here is getting you people to acknowledge the socialism for the wealthy that exists and that's usually obtained thru the efforts of corporate lobbyists and politicians... negotiating. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find hookers and coke do play a role in the negotiations.

You seem to 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm not warning my time struggling with a bunch of hooey.

Weakest excuse ever.  You were the one who brought it up. I merely answered your question. Now you decide you don't like what the answer is and once again it's my fault.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only struggle here is getting you people to acknowledge the socialism for the wealthy that exists and that's usually obtained thru the efforts of corporate lobbyists and politicians... negotiating. 

Because it doesnt exist the way you think it does.

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised to find hookers and coke do play a role in the negotiations.

That's "union" negotiations   LOL - JK!

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Weakest excuse ever.  You were the one who brought it up. I merely answered your question. Now you decide you don't like what the answer is and once again it's my fault.

No not really, you're just being your usual natural contrarian trollish self.  No one likes corruption but you can't seem to help but turn everything into an exercise in rubber and glue.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Because it doesn't exist the way you think it does.

The fact it exists at all is completely counter to your proposition capitalism is strictly economical.  Of course who knows what the heck you mean when you say.  You certainly give every impression capitalists don't need or want any government participation in the economy - just buses that run on time or something.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That's "union" negotiations   LOL - JK!

Sure, it probably happens all the time.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No not really, you're just being your usual natural contrarian trollish self.  No one likes corruption but you can't seem to help but turn everything into an exercise in rubber and glue.

ROFLMAO - told ya it was somehow magically going to be all my fault

You brought it up, you framed it as a partisan issue, i've given you the facts and now you're angry

Quote

The fact it exists at all is completely counter to your proposition capitalism is strictly economical. 

Not even a tiny bit.  Sorry. 

Quote

Of course who knows what the heck you mean when you say. 

Intelligent people. 

Quote

You certainly give every impression capitalists don't need or want any government participation in the economy - just buses that run on time or something.

uhhhh... ok. Busses are good i guess?  (???????)

I have no idea why simple facts tick you off as much as they do frequently.  Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one.  Socialism is both because it inherently involves the gov't to give the economy specific direction towards a common series of goals for the benefit of whatever goals "Society" has.

In other words - capitalism exists not for soceity's sake or goals but independent of that. It's about personal aspiration, achievement, success and prosperity, not that of the society.  As the saying goes It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

With socialism the state IS the benefactor and controls the market or the means of production for the benefit of the STATE, not the individual. So you can't seperate the economic model from the state because the state is the beneficiary of the model

 

This should not be ticking you off. It's just basic simple facts.

[reason10]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm not warning my time struggling with a bunch of hooey.

The only struggle here is getting you people to acknowledge the socialism for the wealthy that exists and that's usually obtained thru the efforts of corporate lobbyists and politicians... negotiating. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find hookers and coke do play a role in the negotiations.

You seem to 

Socialism for the wealthy? How would you define that?

Do you think WELFARE is socialism? Are you really that AOC STUPID?

Socialism is defined as government control of all the means of production. Tell us again how that somehow morphs into welfare spending.

And you wonder why so many people call you STUPID.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

Socialism for the wealthy? How would you define that?

Welfare for corporations. Free money for wealthy people.  Taken from you.

You just don't get it do you?

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I have no idea why simple facts tick you off as much as they do frequently.

What facts? 

 

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one.

Then why do capitalists need to lobby politicians? Perhaps it should be the other way around and instead of self-respecting capitalists asking politicians for subsidies and tax breaks etc politicians could ask capitalists if they'd please take them anyway.

[reason10]

On 12/8/2023 at 1:27 PM, eyeball said:

Welfare for corporations. Free money for wealthy people.  Taken from you.

You just don't get it do you?

First of all, you are incredibly stupid and uneducated.

And you're not the only ignoramus who tries to tell us that all government spending is socialism. (Pretty positive you weren't educated in a superior Florida public school.)

Socialism is the  PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  The Marx model calls for (a) the abolition of all private property, and (b) the abolition of the family unit.

You REALLY need to read more and post less. This has got to be embarrassing for you to be wrong so many times and on such simple stuff.

On 12/8/2023 at 1:39 PM, eyeball said:

What facts? 

 

Then why do capitalists need to lobby politicians? Perhaps it should be the other way around and instead of self-respecting capitalists asking politicians for subsidies and tax breaks etc politicians could ask capitalists if they'd please take them anyway.

Why do left wing NAZIS need to buy votes from the stupid with welfare (which is a much bigger budget than any business subsidies?) Your food stamps are PAYING for that Democrat vote.

[reason10]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:46 PM, eyeball said:

I'm not warning my time struggling with a bunch of hooey.

The only struggle here is getting you people to acknowledge the socialism for the wealthy that exists and that's usually obtained thru the efforts of corporate lobbyists and politicians... negotiating. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find hookers and coke do play a role in the negotiations.

You seem to 

There is no such thing as socialism for the wealthy. That is a stupid and totally ignorant statement. Welfare is not socialism.

(Proving you OBVIOUSLY were socially promoted out of an inferior blue state public school.)

Socialism is the PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. 

The Marx model calls for two things (a) the total abolition of private property and (b) the total abolition of the family.

 

[godzilla]

"animals"? you're a sick puppy...

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, reason10 said:

First of all, you are incredibly stupid and uneducated.

 

I bet you've also never heard the term subsidy.

Quote

There is no such thing as socialism for the wealthy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/07/18/corporate-socialism/65e15154-982f-4418-bd4b-0868b9dba787/#:~:text='Corporate Socialism',July 18%2C 2002

 

 

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is a classical political-economic argument asserting that, in advanced capitalist societies, state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor, for example in the form of transfer payments.^[1]

The term corporate welfare is widely used to describe the bestowal of favorable treatment to big business (particular corporations) by the government. One of the most commonly raised forms of criticism are statements that the capitalist political economy toward large corporations allows them to benefit from government interventions ("lemon socialism").^[2] The argument has been raised and cited on many occasions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor

 

[CdnFox]

On 12/8/2023 at 10:39 AM, eyeball said:

 

Then why do capitalists need to lobby politicians?

Because two different groups with two different goals need to communicate   they woudln't need lobbyists if they were both a political model now would they

Sometimes you make this easy.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

I bet you've also never heard the term subsidy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/07/18/corporate-socialism/65e15154-982f-4418-bd4b-0868b9dba787/#:~:text='Corporate Socialism',July 18%2C 2002

 

 

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is a classical political-economic argument asserting that, in advanced capitalist societies, state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor, for example in the form of transfer payments.^[1]

The term corporate welfare is widely used to describe the bestowal of favorable treatment to big business (particular corporations) by the government. One of the most commonly raised forms of criticism are statements that the capitalist political economy toward large corporations allows them to benefit from government interventions ("lemon socialism").^[2] The argument has been raised and cited on many occasions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor

 

yeah - that's the kind of nonsense lefties tell themselves to get aroused at night and work themselves up for voting for trudeau

But - it's bullocks.

Here's how this logic works -  if the gov't institutes a 10 percent tax reduction everybody gets the same reduction. BUT - the maddog socialist types will say "BUT BUT BUT BUT - the rich guy saves 10,000 a year, the poor person saves NOTHING!!! - it's WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah - no.  the rich person also PAYS 100,000 dollars in taxes. The poor person pays nothing but receives benefits.  After the tax break, the rich person will still pay 90,000 in taxes, while the poor person still pays nothing but receives benefits.

This kind of leftie logic is insane, and it always hinges on ignoring the contribution of the rich and their comparative return. Poor people get vastly vastly more money in gov't benefits than they pay, rich people get next to nothing ompared to what they pay, but they're all evil people sucking the poor dry.   It's logic for the stupid,

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because two different groups with two different goals need to communicate

Well, it's a start.