B!tchfest: a healthy release for our non-roleplay annoyances.

[Mardox]

@Sombrero
Hey could you do me a favor? Don't let any of them know I'm actually a sane individual who decided to run an amateur social experiment. I want Derpino to think a lunatic actually tried to curse him to be eaten by predatory clowns.

[Sombrero]

Going to college soon, so my qualm is pretty relevant.

Fucking safe spaces. Fuck anyone who conceived and put the idea in motion.

@Ebonsquire

Hey, sometimes people with shaky self esteem need a place where absolutely nobody can disagree with them, and not everyone can afford a basement these days.

[Sombrero]

@Sombrero
Hey could you do me a favor? Don't let any of them know I'm actually a sane individual who decided to run an amateur social experiment. I want Derpino to think a lunatic actually tried to curse him to be eaten by predatory clowns.

@Mardox

They may find out eventually. Delta, Claw, and Swift use this site periodically, and Aman was online just recently.

[Mardox]

I know Claw and I don't think the others care enough.

[Alina13]

#Frustrating

When your hometown is dumb as fuck and you feel right at home 7 hours away

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I guess the only real thing I can say in defensive for Obama. (and Bush.) Is it's a lot damn harder being president than people think it is...Other than that, the whole "they are both stupid" argument is preposterous. Yeah, Bush got "C'S" Yuk yuk. At Yale, a prestigious college where you most likely would never be accepted into. I suppose a lot of reasons why people "hate" them are quite poor and invalid reasons.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148744/D..
Or things like Ted Cruz is Canadian, or Obama had Muslim parents. That kind of meaningless B.S. But, what is politics without stupidity?

I mean if you believe that, I understand why you support him. I can't really confirm or deny speculation.

@SleepingSilence

@Vilageidiotx Mmm. I don't believe you though. *wags finger* You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. My roommate is also very closely related to a small business in the area and he always tell me in board meetings he goes to how much they get screwed over. But I has a feeling this won't get too much farther. Because I'd like to pretend I'm too busy to discuss politics because they can become quite tedious to discuss. :P

Also god dammit I didn't want these too STILL be about politics. Lol.

Quick, someone change the subject. XD

@SleepingSilence

Hey now, ain't gettin away that easy. I said i'd answer it when I have time and I have time now.

The article can be broken down into two major points: That people who own businesses don't like paying taxes, and that businesses in fact pay taxes. The idea that this is ruinous to the economy is taken for granted and at no point supported by really anything meaningful. If there is red tape that is truly useless, then fine, get rid of it, but the idea implied by this article that all regulation and taxation is useless is silly. If it is true that labor laws and environmental regulation is keeping a business from hiring people, then good riddance to those businesses. Nobody is owed success in business. If you cannot pay a proper wage to your employees, and you cannot run your business without doing damage to the nation or the world, then you shouldn't be running a business.

As for the myth part, or more specifically the myth that big business uses regulation as a way to keep small business down, there are a lot of holes in that idea that it simply cannot hold water. First though, let's point out that the thinktank that contributed the article you posted was created by the owner of HomeDepot. Keeping in mind that is the sort of people propagating this myth, we can go forward into busting it.

The problem is this; if a large business is willing to push regulatory legislation, we have to assume they have the resources to take the losses associated with this legislation. If they are doing so to keep down small businesses, this means that they are both willing to take a loss in order to stop small-business competition, and that small businesses don't usually have the resources to thrive in a regulatory environment. So lets say that we take the regulation away. Smallmart and Bigmart can hire all the child labor they could ever want, and they can dump as much trash into the river as they ever could please. The problem is that Bigmart still presumably A: Has the resources relative to Smallmart that allowed them to comfortably take regulation in the first place, and B: Bigmart will still want to use those resources to force Smallmart out of the business. So in this circumstance, Bigmart can drop the price of the service just enough to take down Smallmart. They could also in theory poach labor from Smallmart by increasing wages, but I don't think this is how this is typically done, looking at Wal-Mart as an example of how a company kills small business. This is a round-about way of showing how, if you get rid of regulation, you get the same result of Smallmart closing down, but now Bigmart, unregulated, can do whatever they want to their employees and/or the environment.

And if your don't believe a pricing out scenario can happen, then I only need point you to the most recent use of this tactic. Last year the American oil industry was booming. American oil pays higher wages than third world oil, and their methods are more complicated due to the location of American drilling sites. Third-world oil producing companies responded last year by dropping prices dramatically. This is why, during the holidays, prices were fucking amazing. The result was catastrophic for the American oil industry, that couldn't compete with the cheapness of foreign oil.

As for Bush and Obama, I don't think Bush quite had it in him to be President. His personal history suggests an average dude born to a wealthy family. It is his personability that got him into the office, which itself wouldn't have been the biggest issue because he had something of a dream-team cabinet from the Neocon perspective. The problem is that he was faced with some of the biggest hurdles a President has had to deal with in recent memory. The problem is, he was basically a trust-fund kid.

As for Obama, I didn't trust him when he was running. He came off like a machine politician; basically just a Clinton with more charisma. And I have disagreed with him on a lot of things. But there are a few things he has done that I genuinely respect. The biggest thing I respect him for is the thing he seems most reviled for; Obamacare. I say this as somebody is is paying for overprices healthcare thanks to Obamacare, but putting that aside, this is how I see that entire thing. Ever since mah boy Harry Truman, Dems have been trying to get us a universal healthcare, and they've been cut off at the chase every time. When it was Obama's turn, and he found himself unable (like so many Dems before him) to pass a completed form of universal healthcare, he said "Fuck it" and forced through a half-finished version. It's incomplete nature, specifically the lack of any public insurance, is why I am paying ridiculous amounts for a plan. But I have to admire how he handled it because of the situation he has created. Specifically, he's made it so the only way out is forward. If we fail to pass a public option, insurance prices will continue to be expensive. But if we try to dismantle healthcare, that'll mean taking people who have plans thanks to Obama care and unceremoniously dumping them. If they just get rid of that requirement for everyone to have health insurance, prices will skyrocket. To make that situation even better, Sanders is selling the progressives on a full-out Scandanavian system. Now that the price for healthcare in the US is doubly unreasonable, the call for a Scandanavian system could grow louder. Hell, my conservative family who do not like Obama seem also to be entirely soured on the insurance model by now. So what Obama has done is the greatest thing any politician can do for America; he's forced an issue hard to the left and cut off all decent opportunities for retreat to the right. And that I respect the fuck out of.

[Shorticus]

On the note of politicians being smart because they get their degrees at Yale or Harvard:

In all actuality, the biggest and most important thing about those universities is A) prestige and B) connections. From my understanding, smart people DO go there, but by and large they are schools for the social elite, not schools for the genius.

It's similar to how you're expected to develop connections in law school as well as learn since most folks who go to law school are wealthy or know someone that's wealthy (read: you're friend with a guy whose daddy owns a law firm, so you might get a job).

[Dinh AaronMk]

@Vilageidiotx

The article can be broken down into two major points: That people who own businesses don't like paying taxes, and that businesses in fact pay taxes. The idea that this is ruinous to the economy is taken for granted and at no point supported by really anything meaningful.

Fun-fact: even Adam Smith supports the idea that taxing a product is ultimately a benefit for the entire economy.

Eat shit political economists, your Jesus has abandoned you.

And if your don't believe a pricing out scenario can happen, then I only need point you to the most recent use of this tactic. Last year the American oil industry was booming. American oil pays higher wages than third world oil, and their methods are more complicated due to the location of American drilling sites. Third-world oil producing companies responded last year by dropping prices dramatically. This is why, during the holidays, prices were fucking amazing. The result was catastrophic for the American oil industry, that couldn't compete with the cheapness of foreign oil.

An additional point to broaden this is that it wasn't just third-world producers trying to crash the American market as it may also be Saudi Arabia simply wanting to cripple Iran as they're opening up. The Saudis own enough stock in crude that they can easily change the price of oil by making one of two choices: stop now, or keep going.

Saudi Arabia has decided to keep going, flooding the world with excess crude to drop the price of oil below the natural cost of world crude and well below the operating cost of American, Canadian, Russian, or Iranian crude forcing their economies or their industry to start draining faster than a blood bank ran by vampires. The Saudi end-goal would be to smash any future competition and to continue on like the Rockefellers of the world.

This also has a double-effect by undercutting alternative fuels - natural gas, solar power, wind - by closing the price-gap between them and oil and probably stunting progress in those fields by making the prices far more disproportionate than they should be.

[SleepingSilence]

@Vilageidiotx It wasn't to avoid conversation as a whole. I just don't like getting into politically binges when that ISN'T the point of the thread. And its not. :P

I don't think all taxation, or regulation is evil. I want to say only sith deal in absolutes because the argument people keep making are, "OH EVERYTHING" and that's not what it is at all. But it's simply a fact, that are tax system is beyond fucked and it does hurt businesses just starting out. No, you're not owed a successful business. But the government shouldn't be the reason your not successful. With subsidizing and picking winners and losers. The government can do just that. And as for the environment, you making me think of Cap'N'Trade in Europe. When the government tried putting massive control on pollution, and how well that all turned out for them. Regulation and restriction don't automatically mean better business and that seems to be what your arguing in favor of and if we have such conflicting opinions, I don't know if it can really make much of a difference continuing this. That was not the only things that the article or the links within mentioned, so once again I have a feeling like I'm sort of talking to a brick wall...

The point of getting rid of some regulation, is allowing smaller businesses to compete, increasing competition help to avoid monopolies. Saying having less would somehow equal the same outcome is borderline absurd.

If you disagree that are tax system is horribly done. Or that we don't have incredibly stupid regulations that need to go. I don't think its worth getting into this. (even if I didn't really want to in the first place.)

I just woke up, so I don't exactly feel like taking this to pages length discussion. (I honestly don't care enough to write thousands of words on such a thing when I sort of already know...) XP

businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulat.. Just to save myself some time, here's various regulations that are dumb.

#2 Business Privilege License... For Bloggers
The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years

#3 Funeral Director License for Monks
The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.

#5 D.C. Tour Guide License
If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

And there's things like needed a license for your child to have a lemonade stand...Like seriously...if your arguing that environmental/various restrictions aren't hurting small business. Or that its a myth that we have too many stupid regulations. I frankly don't even know what I can say...So I'll just say we clearly have differences of opinion here. :3

As for Bush/Obama and what you said. Only thing I'll say about that, is I agree insurance companies and how healthcare is, is not great and it does need to be fixed. But what Obama did, and I assume you mean his socialized healthcare tax/bill. And saying that's the greatest thing?

Strongly disagree. "Obamacare" has been a big political failure. I know my parents, and my friends all tried to get charged more for less coverage than they were already getting. investors.com/politics/obamacare/obama..
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthc..
huffingtonpost.com/dan-karr/why-obamac..

So, yeah. I have a feeling it will go faster if we agree to disagree. Haha. So people can get back to bitching about things in peace? Could we spare the common folk and like PM each other instead? I don't want this to keep going on ad infinitum. xP

@Shorticus Well there's as saying that "you're so smart your stupid" I'm not saying education necessary equals sheer intelligence (or gives you common sense) because how college's teach nowadays are horribly bias, it can actually teach you something incorrectly. Proving the old adage "practice makes perfect" wrong. But the average person calling them stupid, I find it very ironic for them to say that. When their is real criticisms you can lob at them both.

[Shorticus]

Strongly disagree. "Obamacare" has been a big political failure. I know my parents, and my friends all tried to get charged more for less coverage than they were already getting.

@SleepingSilence

Correct me if I'm wrong, @Vilageidiotx, but the reason our resident villager says it's successful in what it's aiming to do is because it has crappened things enough that it's exposed some serious flaws with the insurance system we have and will in the long run bring about European-style healthcare which is overall going to be better for us. He's not saying "Obamacare works and helps people!" He's saying "Obamacare is harmful, but it's the right kind of harmful that will bring about good in the end, and that's why I respect Obama in this one case."

...Which is a way of looking at Obamacare that I never considered, but it fits my perception of Obama. He's not an idiot. He's cunning. He's just not of the soundest moral character and focused a lot of energy into making good sales pitches that he didn't make good on.

[Vilageidiotx]

I did say that I'm fine with getting rid of red tape regulations. It really comes down to which line of thinking we trust when we hear it brought up. When I hear a politician or businessman bring up wanting to get rid of regulations, I don't think they are talking about the regular red tape regulations because I don't trust them that much. I assume they are saying "Please can I stop paying my way in taxes, and can I start dumping lead into your children now?" There is a history of these people using ridiculous laws as a cover to get rid of important ones. This is why you feel like your talking to a brick wall; because we're both arguing from completely different assumptions about what the words we are talking about means. When you say taxes and regulation, you are thinking about a few bad ideas that do come up. When I say taxes and regulation, I'm thinking of the good ones that hold the system in place.

I do have to point out that all the regulations you innumerated there are on a local level. That's a whole other bag of worms. I think there is something mathematical to that; when you have so many local governments in the US all desperate for cash, a few are going to pass some fucked up laws. Like "The Law of Average Greedy Motherfuckers" law or something.

And like I said about Obamacare, it is broken. I agree. I said that too. I definitely don't like Obamacare in its current form. I'm a single dude, in my twenties, and I pay $121 a month for healthcare despite the fact I haven't been to a hospital since I was 18. And for you Europeans btw, what I am paying is considered a bargain since I'm a government employee and get to pick from a dozen odd plans instead of the one or two most people are allowed to chose from. So yeh, I'm not happy with the current situation either. Why I said I respected him for it though is because, the guy did try to make a working version but was forced to hack it apart to get it through congress. I respect him is because he threw the broken version out there instead of retreating back to square one. He's forced us into a position where we'll have to socialize it now, because as it stands forcing people to pay outrageous payments cannot go on forever and the outcry against will bring us into one of the socialized systems soon enough. With Sanders getting people pumped up for the Scandi system, I could see the Republicans accepting the German system Obama was trying to build once he leaves office. So yeh, in the short term I agree, Obamacare is a failure. But in the long term it's a brilliant piece of policy in that, by making a failure, he's forced us into a situation where the one way forward is his. And since the best way for a President to impress me is to wrench the country to the left, even if it is just in one piece of policy, I gotta like the guy for it.

But if you want to stop talking politics that's cool. I actually enjoy this, certainly more than all those cringey MRA/Feminism things that keep popping up in this thread. Politics is fun as fuck yo. But if it makes you uncomfortable, we can just stop it here.

[Dinh AaronMk]

I wish this sausage deli platter deal had come with more crackers and less cheese, as it stands I had to break into my own crackers and I may be making spreadable cheese and cracker sandwiches soon.

Not an absolute nightmare, but I have half a container of cheese left and I already ate one of two sausages.

[SleepingSilence]

@Shorticus townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/201.. This is all that's going through my mind when obamacare is mentioned. -.-

@VilageidiotxThe main thing seems to be about pollution and environment. But I already said how government restriction made that actually worse, via Cap-Trade. And the way you can get people to not pollute is by creating private propriety, so for example, someone buys a lake and if someone damages their lake they bought, they can sue for damages. You might be right that were arguing different things, but I still thinks its common sense that all of these bullshit regulations DO hurt small businesses and saying they don't just doesn't make any kind of sense. There's another on a list that forced people to put calorie counts on all items on their menus, which costs a ton of work hours (time = money) to accomplish. Its not always state level, their's flat out bad regulations period. And environmental restrictions are often far too extreme. I don't think it's exactly as black and white as you made it out to be. And our tax system is ranked 53 in ease of use...I don't think I could call anything 'good taxes' with a straight face how are system is currently.

I don't think being a massive failure and purposefully lying a bunch and all the other things that the bill did or tried to do, was a very smart thing at all...That's beyond overthinking and giving him far too much credit frankly. I think it's a little silly to respect someone for that. But I guess when you call something the literal Best, I was under the impression you didn't think it was a failure. :P Well I don't dislike discussing politics, but there's warning signs where you know you will not get anywhere in discussing them...I respect that you are far more sensible than most. But I just don't want this to become a toxic thing and it's seems to be unavoidable if it goes on too long. I just know, more people DON'T like politics and prefer to keep people as happy as possible. I mean its not exactly, a political thread. ^-^ (Maybe someone needs to make a thread for it...)

Sorry everyone else. <.<

[Vilageidiotx]

...Which is a way of looking at Obamacare that I never considered, but it fits my perception of Obama. He's not an idiot. He's cunning. He's just not of the soundest moral character and focused a lot of energy into making good sales pitches that he didn't make good on.

@Shorticus

Yeh, he's a machine politician, but I'll take anything that gets any sort of result I like. Republics are a cutthroat system after all. And I suppose after coming of age in the Bush years the entire idea of a President who does anything I respect is almost a novelty. He's sort of like an LBJ in that respect; sullied by a hawkish geopolitical stance and a cold approach to politics, but willing to play the game to get a few progressive things through. That he managed to do anything remotely progressive in the Reaganist era of American politics is impressive. Gotta consider that the old-school Progressives, like FDR and Truman and LBJ, still had that racist vote from the south making it relatively easy for them to pass things that weren't civil rights. When LBJ threw away the southern vote to sign the Civil Rights Act (another good point for that controversial president) he created this situation where the Dems are always shit out of luck when it comes to passing things. I mean, what is the Clinton administration most known for policy wise? NAFTA, a free trade agreement?

Fun-fact: even Adam Smith supports the idea that taxing a product is ultimately a benefit for the entire economy.

Eat shit political economists, your Jesus has abandoned you.

@Dinh AaronMk

Yeh, a lot of what people call "Free Market Economics" is actually a watered down version of "Austrian Economics". The entire "Taxation is Theft" line, for instance, is hella Austrian. Trickle Down economics is also basically a tooled up version of the Austrian model. And what Austrian economics is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, is a morality argument pretending to be a system of economics. I've seen more economists insult arguments by comparing them to the Austrian school then I ever have seen comparing to Marxism, and that is saying something.

As for Adam Smith, his entire thesis is that punitive taxes are bad. He also argued for labor unions well before any started to form, that long term educational requirements wasted the labor of youth, and he had a tendency to snark about how stock holders complain about the price of labor but never say a word about their own income from the stock.

@Shorticus townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/201.. This is all that's going through my mind when obamacare is mentioned. -.-

@VilageidiotxThe main thing seems to be about pollution and environment. But I already said how government restriction made that actually worse, via Cap-Trade. And the way you can get people to not pollute is by creating private propriety, so for example, someone buys a lake and if someone damages their lake they bought, they can sue for damages. You might be right that were arguing different things, but I still thinks its common sense that all of these bullshit regulations DO hurt small businesses and saying they don't just doesn't make any kind of sense. There's another on a list that forced people to put calorie counts on all items on their menus, which costs a ton of work hours (time = money) to accomplish. Its not always state level, their's flat out bad regulations period. And environmental restrictions are often far too extreme. I don't think it's exactly as black and white as you made it out to be. And our tax system is ranked 53 in ease of use...I don't think I could call anything 'good taxes' with a straight face how are system is currently.

I don't think being a massive failure and purposefully lying a bunch and all the other things that the bill did or tried to do, was a very smart thing at all...That's beyond overthinking and giving him far too much credit frankly. I think it's a little silly to respect someone for that. But I guess when you call something the literal Best, I was under the impression you didn't think it was a failure. :P Well I don't dislike discussing politics, but there's warning signs where you know you will not get anywhere in discussing them...I respect that you are far more sensible than most. But I just don't want this to become a toxic thing and it's seems to be unavoidable if it goes on too long. I just know, more people DON'T like politics and prefer to keep people as happy as possible. I mean its not exactly, a political thread. ^-^ (Maybe someone needs to make a thread for it...)

@SleepingSilence

If you really want to end it, you're going to have to sacrifice the last word I'm afraid, because imma feel a need to answer myself, it just how I be. =p

You presented one way that pollution regulation can go wrong. I could point to the slave-trade as an example of why capitalism is wrong, but both your and my arguments would be disingenuous. Specific examples are only arguments against those specific examples, but we are talking about broader systems. Also, saying that making all property private property will somehow end pollution is silly as hell. Do we make all the Rivers private property? How do you privatize the water table? And even then it makes no sense because why on earth are we assuming a guy who owns a company is more interested in how pretty his lake is then the cheapest way to dump things? So now we've sold our lakes and businesses are dumping shit into those lakes, the chemicals entering the water table will inevitably fail to respect property boundaries and now the water table is poisoned.

As for Obama, him lying and all that can be the smart thing to do. Moral? Naw. Honest? Obviously not. But it got him where he wanted to go, so it does seem to be smart. I have no compunction about how this system works. In a Republic, dishonesty and dirty dealing is the name of the game. You'd need somebody more educated in American political history like @Byrd Man to list all the dirty shit your favorite Presidents pulled to achieve their goals. Now, I am not calling Obama my favorite my any means. I'm just saying I can respect a liar if I think their lies did something that'll be good in the long term.

And like I said a couple of times, I recognize that there are tax complications and regulations that could be cut. I think you're thinking I'm being black and white, but in reality I'm playing way too much in the grey area for a comfortable political discussion. Like I said before, in the same way I see Obama's immorality as being just part of how Republics work, I naturally don't trust the right-wing politicians who talk about cutting those complications and regulations. Because, to me, their just using the shitty rules to hide an attempt to ham-string the good ones. Hell, Ted Cruz literally wants to fire me.

[Dinh AaronMk]

As for Adam Smith, his entire thesis is that punitive taxes are bad. He also argued for labor unions well before any started to form, that long term educational requirements wasted the labor of youth, and he had a tendency to snark about how stock holders complain about the price of labor but never say a word about their own income from the stock.

@Vilageidiotx

Basically what Libertarians and what not forget.

An interesting aside is that even without government in the market we'd still need government in the market to dictate what a free market is. Ultimately, free market capitalism doesn't really exist since on many larger levels it requires input. Whether in the grandiose requests and actions of the federal level (issuance of patents, investigation of, action against, and defining of what is a market scam (insider trading), etc) to the local level (heil County Board).

[Dinh AaronMk]

The main thing seems to be about pollution and environment. But I already said how government restriction made that actually worse, via Cap-Trade. And the way you can get people to not pollute is by creating private propriety, so for example, someone buys a lake and if someone damages their lake they bought, they can sue for damages. You might be right that were arguing different things, but I still thinks its common sense that all of these bullshit regulations DO hurt small businesses and saying they don't just doesn't make any kind of sense. There's another on a list that forced people to put calorie counts on all items on their menus, which costs a ton of work hours (time = money) to accomplish. Its not always state level, their's flat out bad regulations period.

@SleepingSilence

The consumer is owed to have a certain level of information to make an appropriate, correct, and appropriately judged purchasing decision. Whether that's knowing the calorie counts in food or the limits of a certain grade of nut and bolt. To have uninformed consumers is to have easily abused consumers, which can be taken advantage of those companies who can, will, or could.

Now you might bitch about how much "time" it takes to jot that down next to the item of choice, but it's the most effective. Yes, I worked in a family business too but guess what: it's harder to learn that stuff and would take much more time or money to educate an employee working there on company time so he may convey to the customer the facts he or she needs to make a smart buying choice. But really he or she may not do that and sell them an inappropriate piece of the stock. And then it all rolls back on the company. And if that thing is faulty in some way leading to personal injury or a health risk then the company will be liable for a injury suit or other which will sure as hell cost more in damages than a simple fine from the county or state.

And it rolls back into what I said earlier about what defines a free market, and really I'd argue that an appropriately educated populace is a more than healthy aspect of a free market. It is as well more than impossible to teach every consumer the specifics of daily products which would in the end probably be another ten to twenty years of education that'll be forgotten.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Basically what Libertarians and what not forget.

An interesting aside is that even without government in the market we'd still need government in the market to dictate what a free market is. Ultimately, free market capitalism doesn't really exist since on many larger levels it requires input. Whether in the grandiose requests and actions of the federal level (issuance of patents, investigation of, action against, and defining of what is a market scam (insider trading), etc) to the local level (heil County Board).

@Dinh AaronMk

Yeh, you get rid of the government and those with property become the government. There ain't no utopia's, and every system is going to be chalk full of people trying to fuck you over. That's why I pull to the left anymore, because if imma be fucked over, I'd least like some consolation prizes in the bargain.

[Dinh AaronMk]

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

Yeh, you get rid of the government and those with property become the government. There ain't no utopia's, and every system is going to be chalk full of people trying to fuck you over. That's why I pull to the left anymore, because if imma be fucked over, I'd least like some consolation prizes in the bargain.

@Vilageidiotx

I could argue additionally that we're a government for the people by the people then it'd be proper if we all bit the bullet and admitted to the horse-shit that happens because we allowed it to happen. But that doesn't apply here at all because no one actually goes out to vote enough. But that's also a whole other plate of worms.

[SleepingSilence]

@Vilageidiotx Too long...Have too many other things to do...I guess this won't away. >.< Just small points.

1. "I'll take anything that gets any sort of result I like." Is a rather dangerous political belief. If that's just a general thing. That'd be like wishing for more people to go on mass shooting because maybe it get people to want more gun bans...Not saying its the same, or you believe such a thing ofcourse. It still is a little scary to say. But how did Obama failing to provide socialized medicine help anyone? I just straight up don't get it, probably never will.

2. Trickle down economics have never existed. Ever. It's political jargon bullshit. blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/sorry-bu..

3. Well I asked maybe do it via PM...but I don't want to sound controlling or anything.

...dude..."You presented one way that pollution regulation can go wrong. I could point to the slave-trade as an example of why capitalism is wrong, but both your and my arguments would be disingenuous". This statement is quite disingenuous alright. XD Slave trade exists in socialism too, and they're are FAR MORE benefits to capitalism than government restrictions. This is the kind of statement that makes me think of black/white.

Well, there's plenty of other reasons...
usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-inte..
forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/0..
nationalcenter.org/TPRegulations.html (snippets from this)

According to economists Michael Hazilla and Raymond J. Kopp, environmental regulations alone reduced overall American employment by 1.18 percent (by 1990), or by 1.1 to 1.4 million jobs. Federal regulations on business, environmental and otherwise, have destroyed between 3.6 and 9.6 million jobs.

*As much as 80% of all inflation is attributable to federal, state and local government mandates and regulations, according to economist Richard Rahn.

*Americans spend 12 billion hours, equal to 48 hours per capita, dealing with federal forms each year.

*According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of all health care spending goes for administrative and regulatory costs.

*Since stringent drug-approval procedures were enacted in 1962, the cost of developing new drugs has doubled and the number of drugs approved each year has plummeted by two-thirds.

Excessive regulations have held-up reconstruction of riot-torn South Central Los Angeles. Entrepreneurs wishing to start up "light industries" in Los Angeles must first receive as many as 200 approvals from federal, state, city and regional government authorities.

Private property is one way to create cleaner environments. It does make sense, if let's say a non profit, didn't want people polluting in a park, if they were able to pool there money and buy the land, anyone dumping on their ground could be fined. Just assuming every business is evil and are like the cartoon villain's via captain planet. Ignores all the businesses that are for the environment, the government is terrible at keeping public property clean. It's something the libertarians argue for. Now its of course not a end all solution, nothing is. But it's a start right?
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/..

The reason I don't think your being particularly gray is because of various statements you have made, like saying you don't trust right wing politics and your saying Ted Cruz wants to fire "me". (It's a little hyperbolic at the very least, and if you trust either side of politics, you're the problem. :P) and when the beginning of the conversation is "I didn't read your link or side, but I totally did" like less than a minute after my post. When one side plugs their ears, it doesn't seem like this is a discussion, its a battle to be right. And that's the kind of stuff I really don't like.

"Yeh, you get rid of the government and those with property become the government. There ain't no utopia's, and every system is going to be chalk full of people trying to fuck you over. That's why I pull to the left anymore, because if imma be fucked over, I'd least like some consolation prizes in the bargain." <--- I just find that a little ridiculous. That's the supposed straw man argument of democrat vote democrat solely to get free crap. But your not made of straw are you? It makes it hard to take you seriously when I can't tell what's a joke or not. :P (it also reminds me of my roommate's grandpa saying I'd rather have a black man lie to me and a white one, for why he voted for Obama.)

Like this is the kind of thing I wonder if I'm being trolled here...(I already had someone 'trolling' that I don't even know if they didn't actually believe what they were saying, and now I'm questioning it all over again.) XD

[TheEvanCat]

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

Yeh, you get rid of the government and those with property become the government. There ain't no utopia's, and every system is going to be chalk full of people trying to fuck you over. That's why I pull to the left anymore, because if imma be fucked over, I'd least like some consolation prizes in the bargain.

@Vilageidiotx

I'm a personal fan of warlordism. In a vacuum, the dick with the biggest guns and the most Toyota Hilux trucks is the new government.