get this woman out of my view/politics

@korkamann,

She like Bill is conservative as far as business is concerned but hopefully not as indentured to the rich as congress.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Oh, I'm a word player at heart. Bengazi reminds me of Beng..als.

Nothin' serious.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Oh, I'm a word player at heart. Bengazi reminds me of Beng..als.

Nothin' serious.

Except for a dead ambassador of course.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You know I was talking about word play not being serious.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Tell me Hawk, do you think that 10% of the population of the U S owning 80% of the wealth of the U S is just. And dont give me that shyt of they earned it because most of them inherited it. The only work most of them do is purchasing congressmen.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

OK. Wouldent have come up with that in a million years.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

I think one of the things we all have to come to grips with here in America is...

...with the present structure (unfettered capitalism and a system that allows money to have substantial impact on elections)...

...EVERY politician will be (as you put it) indentured significantly to the rich. Those candidates refusing to be so "indentured" will never get elected…so they do not count.

Further, so long as our system allows individuals to accumulate wealth to the degree we allow…people, including those who choose to lead us, WILL accumulate it, even if it means at time rationalizing “gifts” or “donations" in order to obtain it.

The notion that the leaders will somehow not be as avaricious as the norm…is a pipe dream.

The system has to change…and I suspect the system simply cannot change enough, because history shows us that even systems designed to replace corrupt systems…soon become corrupted. (Viz. France in the late 18 century and Russia in the early 20th.)

In other words, I may be wrong: The “system” may not be the problem. Humans and human nature may be the problem.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

We dont have unfettered capitalism, and anyone who does not understand that after the Great Recession must be a very poor observer. Those who hold the wealth have used that wealth to corrupt government and upend capitalism in order to make it easy to hold on to that wealth and steal more. We have over and over again privitized profits and socialised loses, with very little objection from anyone. We ignore bankruptcy laws at will, often letting companys shed obligations over and over again rather than making sure that they get the death they deserve.

Fantasy runs deep with you Frank, as we see again.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

We dont have unfettered capitalism...

Yeah, Hawk...we actually do. Or at least, so unfettered that is essentially is acting as unfettered. So while you can make a claim of unfettered capitalism (and rationalize it)...the capitalistic system here has run amok.

Sorry you don't get that...but then again, you mostly are a champion of the right of the barons to be barons...so it is understandable.

Quote:

...and anyone who does not understand that after the Great Recession must be a very poor observer.

I consider myself at least as capable an observer of capitalism at work here in america as you, Hawk...and perhaps an even more capable one.

Quote:

Those who hold the wealth have used that wealth to corrupt government and upend capitalism in order to make it easy to hold on to that wealth and steal more.

For you to suppose "the wealthy" are upending capitalism defies logic. The wealthy, Hawk, are using and counting on capitalism to make themselves more wealthy.

Where do you get these ideas from?

Are they just a means of avoiding the obvious?

Quote:

We have over and over again privitized profits and socialised loses,

Sounds good...sounds intriguing. What does it mean?

Quote:

...with very little objection from anyone. We ignore bankruptcy laws at will, often letting companys shed obligations over and over again rather than making sure that they get the death they deserve.

What are you raving about here, Hawk?

Quote:

Fantasy runs deep with you Frank, as we see again.

Gratuitous...and not especially clever remark. You gotta work on that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

When the fundimental rules of capitalism are not being followed you can not say that we have capitalism. Logic 101. At this point it is a word used in propaganda by the ruling class through the government and media which they control in the attempt to keep fools ignorant of what is going on.

And hillary is about to spend a ton of money on selling this propaganda, as she parades around in her costume of champion of the common man and of the victims.

But the great recession changed everything. We want to believe that we are going to get our share, we have been willing to ignore that which argues that we will not, but our powers of self deception has limits.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Ahhh...the fundamental rules of capitalism!

I see.

And pray, what are the fundamental rules of capitalism that we are not following?

Enlighten me, please.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Right and nothing will change as long as our kids are taught in school anything goes as long as its making money.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I don't know about that. It sure seems so, but a lot of us learned otherwise.

0 Replies

Thank you, Rabel and Ossobuco.

I am still hoping Hawk will explain to us why we are not following the "fundamental rules of capitalism"...so that we do not have capitalism.

That ought to be good!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

When the fundimental rules of capitalism are not being followed you can not say that we have capitalism. Logic 101.

C'mon, Hawk.

You invoked Logic 101.

To which I replied:

Quote:

Ahhh...the fundamental rules of capitalism!

I see.

And pray, what are the fundamental rules of capitalism that we are not following?

Enlighten me, please.

So...what are "the fundamental rules of capitalism"...or were you just shooting your mouth off there?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I alluded to some, which you ignored, so I did not take your question as a serious one.

Government does not pick winners and losers, the markets do. All efforts to bribe government to advantage certain firms is a bastardization of capitalism. Likewise government does not interfere in the death of firms that have failed by way of special programs of assistance and using the full weight of the state to influence the work of the bankruptcy courts.

Our government picks winners and losers, it advantages firms that bribe it, it destroys markets for instance by buying trillions of dollars of debt and holding it and writing law that micro-manages markets from washington (various banking laws and ObamaCare being prime examples)....we dont have capitalism, because the outcomes are decided by washington, not the markets.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Capitalism, Hawk, is merely an economic system in which enterprise is controlled by private owners for personal profit…rather than by the state.

Our enterprise is owned by private owners for personal profit…not the state. And the owners can use whatever means they can to maximize profits.

That is why I talked about “unfettered capitalism.”

If you were to talk to any of those private owners looking for maximum profits about the “fundamental rules of capitalism” they would laugh in your face.

And I think you know that.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I don't like her re past stuff either, the wishing they'd get and kill Khadafy, which they did.
Heard of courts?

Did you have some method of successfully bringing Kadaffy to trial that no one else had managed to think of?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

RABEL222 wrote:

Once again the republicans have raised a tempest in a tea pot. And its the same tea pot, Bengazi.

Why do Democrats always throw such a fit whenever people ask them to act ethically and obey the law?

0 Replies

@korkamann,

korkamann wrote:

How true, Rabel. The brouhaha over Clinton's private server which really belongs to the former President Clinton is conducted through a prism of distortion, i.e., sheer fear!

No, people are just once again asking that the Left behave ethically and obey the law (a perfectly reasonable request I might add). And once again the Left are throwing a tantrum and proclaiming themselves above the law.

korkamann wrote:

They did a fishing expedition regarding White Water...nothing there.

Translation: The attorney general authorized an investigation of Whitewater, and a bunch of the Clintons' close associates were convicted of a range of felonies.

korkamann wrote:

Hillary Clinton is leaving all the Republican candidates in the dust and there is no way in hell mainstream America would vote for a Repuke.

You are confusing your daydreams with reality.

korkamann wrote:

...the prize is almost in her grasp.

Not really. After the 2013 gun control debacle, the Republicans are guaranteed to win the White House in 2016 no matter who the Democrats nominate.

If Hillary gets the nomination, the only thing she is going to have to worry about is writing a good concession speech.

0 Replies

get this woman out of my view/politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know