The State of the Union, or, my talking points for 2005...by GWB

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']Governemnt doesn't create that demand, WE do. And government wouldn't need to regulate a corporation that doesn't have any products or customers, would it? Logic and order of occurance is really a problem for you, isn't it?[/quote]

The fact that we buy products and services from them does not change the fact that we set the rules by which they must conduct themselves. Our government was instituted of, by and for the people. ALL the people, not just those whose only goal in life is to be wealthy.

You admit that the sole driving force of corporate entities is greed and profit, but you expect them to be able to self-regulate, something that requires rationality, foresight and moderation.

The flaw in logic is yours, and it is a glaring one.


[quote name='bmulligan']Corporations give compensation labor, or did we reinstitute slavery again......?[/quote]

When corporations have lobbied and infiltrated the government so heavily that they get more welfare than the people, when corporations don't even have to pay their workers a living wage, yes, we HAVE reinstituted slavery.

You may be eager to emulate China and the Phillipines, but most of us aren't.

Corporations shouldn't even have the right to lobby government, government is not instituted to serve their interests. Up until the early 1900s it was illegal for them to do so and it still should be today. Allowing entities whose only motive is profit to influence the legislation passed in your country is insanity and it only leads to more and more corruption in leadership.


[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Hereticked']Rational human beings will not object to other peoples desire to make their fortune. We simply demand that you don't destroy our environment and ruin our economy while doing so, and that is our right. If corporations will not play by the rules which the people set, they will be destroyed.[/quote]

Mmmmmmm....a mini manifesto ! Keep going, I think it needs a little work.[/quote]

Once again, you can't argue so you make a snide comment.

You keep it up! The more you reply, the more people will eventually see through your BS.


[quote name='bmulligan']Who said I've denied altruism as a participant? Not me, I understand it's a MAJOR player in the struggle for control of the masses. Who's the LIAR now ?[/quote]

You are.

True altrusim, by its very nature, is not harmful or controlling. That is merely your twisted perception of it.


[quote name='bmulligan']Are you going to cry now? Can't stand it when people use your own words against you without twisting them or countering them with absurd examples?[/quote]

If I'm shedding any tears at this point, its from uncontrollable laughter. :lol:

 

[Msut77]

Walmart feeds a lot of families.

The crack about only eating Ramen Noodles isnt really a joke they pay jsut enough for most associates not to quit and it is pretty much impossible to feed more then 1 person decent food on their wages.

You people seem to forget this fact, that corporations exist becuase WE want them to, not becuase the government lets them. We choose to work for them and they give us compensation in return. If you don't like their deal, don't work for them or shop there either.

Walmart has this way of closing down smaller places.

Walmart is probably the only employer/retail establishment that actively hires the handicapped and disadvantaged.

No.

Corporations give compensation labor, or did we reinstitute slavery again......?

So as long as its wage slavery or sharecropping you are ok?

 

[Msut77]

Who's the LIAR now ?

Uh still you, unless you want to retract your crap about corporations and buisnesses being made up and supported out of whole clothe.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='bmulligan']Nice hyperbole, I'm sure you pat yourself on the back every time you can come up with a witless absurdity. In addition to Walmart's contribution to employement and consumer savings, Walmart is probably the only employer/retail establishment that actively hires the handicapped and disadvantaged. Something that YOU do not do, nor does 90% of 'corporate' america. how's that for altruism.[/quote]
Its simply a commercial. They hire a few handicap people and put them right at the front of the store - Look, we hire handicap people! If that wasn't blatent enough, they actually produce TV commercials advertising it.

If Walmart actually gave a shit about people, they wouldn't constantly be caught hiring illegal aliens and forcing employees to work unpaid overtime. Oh, yes, they don't 'approve' of that and its all the fault of the individual store managers. The first time it happened I believed them. The second time, I started to wonder. The 7,548th time - I'm not stupid. Its corporate policy with a thin layer of plausible deniability.

Corporations exist becuase WE buy their products. That simple fact you can't seem to understand, that WE control corporations from the ground up when we vote for their products and services with our dollars, is what makes them beholdent to us first, government second. When our votes of confidence move elsewhere, they either change or die.

Corporate behavior is highly controlled by laws. Even then, corporations do everything in their power to find loopholes, and you wind up with Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and more. That's the stuff that corporations do even through our (insufficient) layers of government regulation. If they were untied and allowed to run wild, their actions would be nothing less than attrocities against mankind.

I'd like to not shop there, but Walmart undercut all the local merchants, drove them out of business, then jacked up the price once the competition was gone.

A 'fact' loudly and loosely touted, but has no basis in fact or reality. The nice thing about national corporations is that people in California can now buy the same low priced items as in Florida at the same price.

Except, of course, when the Walmarts in California are offering 'special limited-time values!" in order to drive their competition there out of business. Walmart's lawyers know the loopholes in the system, and they abuse them like there's no tomorrow. All you have to do is 'accidentily' ship too much product to certain stores, then reduce the price to get rid of the overstock - nothing illegal there. Just keep making regular 'mistakes' for a year or two until the competition goes away, then 'fix' the problem.

You know, constant denial of reality won't make utopia appear, and passing laws won't make it happen any faster. Deciding whether selfishness of mankind is correct or not is a moot point. Nature cannot be changed, it can only be obeyed.

If that were true, we'd all be living in caves and bashing each other with large clubs.

On the contrary. I understand, recognize, and practice many other virtues shared by mankind. Others you claim to believe in, but really don't. For example, you don't believe people share enough resources to help the underprivlidged, yet you believe altruism is a prime motivation. So much so, that you think laws are required to force them to comply with your value of charity.

Altruism isn't a primary motivator, but you need to create situations where its able to work to its maximum capacity. Creating situations where greed is the only motivation valued and rewarded is a recipe for disaster.

Another restatement (rudundancy) of a contradiction. I do not 'revel' in the lowest of human behaviors, I accept it, recognize it, deal with it, then move on. You deny it exists, actively campaign against it, seek it's destruction by force, then can't understand why it hasn't conformed to your wish or been changed in any way. You also probably belive that good thoughts can reverse the law of gravity like Peter Pan.

What you want is to create a culture that revolves around worshipping greed, where self-interest is the only value that's given credence. Its quite easy to do that because, again, greed IS the primary motivating factor in most people. The end result isn't going to be pretty, though.

Greed can't be destroyed, but it can be supressed. To do that, you need to create a culture where the more altruistic virtues are admired. That's not going to happen in your world where self-interest is considered the primary virtue.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='drocket']What you want is to create a culture that revolves around worshipping greed, where self-interest is the only value that's given credence. Its quite easy to do that because, again, greed IS the primary motivating factor in most people. The end result isn't going to be pretty, though. [/quote]

What I want is a culture that can understand the concept of liberty and respect freedom of the individual. What I realize, and you continue to deny, is that greed is worshipped, not that is should be, and no matter how many laws you pass you can't 'suppress' it. I'm not trying to create anything, just recognize reality for what it is, a feat you and your commrades can't seem to stomach.

Greed can't be destroyed, but it can be supressed. To do that, you need to create a culture where the more altruistic virtues are admired.

translation: force people to do it by limiting their freedom and instituting a standard statist propoganda extolling the virtues of altruism. Again you have contradicted yourself by saying greed should be eliminated, then saying it cannot be done. As you have exempliffied with your Enron analogy, greed cannot be supperssed, trying to do so will send it into hiding. It will find the weakest point and overflow, it's human nature. Raise taxes ? People will look for loopholes to pay less. Overregulate commerce? People will bring the economy inderground. I suppose you believe we are really winning the war on drugs becuase we have fostered a culture that legislates an ideal moral that drugs are bad, yes? That one's working out really well, don't you think?

That's not going to happen in your world where self-interest is considered the primary virtue.

You keep speaking as if I am trying to make this 'self-interest' a prime virtue through argument. I am not. I'm simply recognizing that is exists and cannot be wished away, or legislated away.

Contrary to this is your desire to replace human nature with an artificial construction and expect the body not to reject it. We might as well try tgo teach a lion to become a vegetarian. Or teach an ostrich to fly. Yes, we are immeasurably greater than the animals in the kingdom, but not becuase of our lofty moral ideas. We are superior because of our ability to recognize patterns of nature and use these phenomenon to our advantage. By uinderstanding the rules the physical world follows, we can then use our imaginations to build the possibilities from what has been given to us. We realize that in order to make aluminium, we can extract it from ore, and not wave a magic wand over mercury while reciting incantations. Nature, to be controlled, must be obeyed.

And far from the commercials of handicapped people working in Walmart, I travel accross the country frequently and have shopped at many Walmarts. I don't, however, watch that much television. My statement about their hiring practices is a result of observation, not marketing. Like the news stories that claim illegal alien exploitation, these people (who worked for a contractor theat Walmart hired, incidentally) feed themselves and their families with so-called 'slave-labor' wages and no one was forcing them to work for this company. They came willingly becuase they have a hope of working hard and eventually becoming citizens. Something tells me that you don't know many illegal aliens in your circles. You need to get out and experiance the world more instead of your insulated, suburban , white bread existence and stop believeing everything you see on TV and read on CNN Online.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Msut77']Who's the LIAR now ?

Uh still you, unless you want to retract your crap about corporations and buisnesses being made up and supported out of whole clothe.[/quote]

You really aren't helping your friends on the other side of my arguments. You should probably stay put until you gain full motor control of your faculties. Brain development is a closely related issue you may want to discuss with your physician before you are released from mommy and daddy's insurance. Just some food for thought. A cat scan now could catch this problem you're having with basic communication and maybe allow you to live a full and productive life. Oh, yes, and the Walmart in my town is hiring greeters, BTW. I know a couple of cashiers and could put in a good word for you.........

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='"bmulligan"'][quote name='drocket']What you want is to create a culture that revolves around worshipping greed, where self-interest is the only value that's given credence. Its quite easy to do that because, again, greed IS the primary motivating factor in most people. The end result isn't going to be pretty, though. [/quote]

What I want is a culture that can understand the concept of liberty and respect freedom of the individual. What I realize, and you continue to deny, is that greed is worshipped, not that is should be, and no matter how many laws you pass you can't 'suppress' it. I'm not trying to create anything, just recognize reality for what it is, a feat you and your commrades can't seem to stomach.

Almost everyone realizes one thing but can never say it: too much freedom is dangerous. Bush gets mocked for having said it (one of his main bushisms), "there ought to be limits to freedom", but he is absolutely correct. That is why a truly free society has never existed. You can go on and on about how we should have more freedom here or there, that's true in some cases and not in others. What society do you create in the process? Is it the society you want to create? Sure, I could have more freedom if I had a say over how and if my paycheck helped the poor, but that say could also mean that many poor children can't attend school, or attend only a poorly run one (more than they are now). That extra freedom could mean that there are no housing for poor families, something that their children will suffer for despite having absolutely nothing to do with it. That extra freedom means many poor families will not be able to provide adequate food for themselves or their children. That extra freedom means that families who fall on hard times have nothing to stop or slow their fall, and make it much more difficult to pick themselves back up. Your freedom is at odds with human rights and human dignity, that should not be the case.

Contrary to this is your desire to replace human nature with an artificial construction and expect the body not to reject it. We might as well try tgo teach a lion to become a vegetarian. Or teach an ostrich to fly.

Keep in mind that you are arguing against a system that is in place. You are arguing against a system that is working in many societies, more than it is ours. You are not arguing against simply an idea. The majority of people have not rejected it, and in some places the ostrich can fly quite well.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Hereticked']The fact that we buy products and services from them does not change the fact that we set the rules by which they must conduct themselves. Our government was instituted of, by and for the people. ALL the people, not just those whose only goal in life is to be wealthy.

You admit that the sole driving force of corporate entities is greed and profit, but you expect them to be able to self-regulate, something that requires rationality, foresight and moderation.

The flaw in logic is yours, and it is a glaring one.[/quote]

I have never advocated the absence of government regulation of commerce. And absurd notion, to say the least. Government's job is to protect each individual from enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone depriving you of your rights must be called to answer to the authorities(the people) and their representatives(the government).

When corporations have lobbied and infiltrated the government so heavily that they get more welfare than the people, when corporations don't even have to pay their workers a living wage, yes, we HAVE reinstituted slavery.

So you want to blame the corporations, not the government or the people? Again you need to look at the order of cause and effect in thes relationships. Intersting that someone like you who praises the slavery of one citizen to another would be against the slavery instituted by a 'corporation'. We have no choice when a majority controls the government, but we DO have a choice when we buy a product, or take employment with a company. No one puts a gun to your head and says you must now work for Walmart. Except in communist states, where the government tells you how you must live every aspect of your life to serve the community instead of yourself.

may be eager to emulate China and the Phillipines, but most of us aren't.

On the contrary, you would love to copy China's method of control. Control over freedom, choices, behavior, labor, wealth, and state controlled moral conditioning. All to save the earth, and for the good of humanity as a whole. You just put a differnt feather on it and call it macaroni.

Corporations shouldn't even have the right to lobby government, government is not instituted to serve their interests. Up until the early 1900s it was illegal for them to do so and it still should be today. Allowing entities whose only motive is profit to influence the legislation passed in your country is insanity and it only leads to more and more corruption in leadership.

Yet, individuals who seek profit are perfectly capable of organizing and lobbying the government for their own special interest. Government is all about special interest. Everyone has their own special interest. Representatives are hired by voters to represent their special interests in the congress. If I worked for a company and they wanted to lobby for the elimination of taxes so that I could make a better wage, shouldn't that company be allowed to represent my interest too? You seem to forget that companies, while considered people by the courts, are really just gropus of individuals just like any other group with it's own set of interests. Again, you can't seem to see things for what they are, because you so badly want them to be a reflection of your imagination.


[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Hereticked']Rational human beings will not object to other peoples desire to make their fortune. We simply demand that you don't destroy our environment and ruin our economy while doing so, and that is our right. If corporations will not play by the rules which the people set, they will be destroyed.[/quote]

Mmmmmmm....a mini manifesto ! Keep going, I think it needs a little work.[/quote]

Once again, you can't argue so you make a snide comment.

You keep it up! The more you reply, the more people will eventually see through your BS.[/quote]

I'm only tring to keep up with your *snorts and such. Looking in the mirror must be hard for you do do in the morning, yes? You can dish it out, but can't take it. Try thinking of yourself being made of rubber. If you trhink hard enough, it might come true.


[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']Who said I've denied altruism as a participant? Not me, I understand it's a MAJOR player in the struggle for control of the masses. Who's the LIAR now ?[/quote]

You are.

True altrusim, by its very nature, is not harmful or controlling. That is merely your twisted perception of it.

[/quote]
I know you are, but what am I............I like this game. It makes me feel young again for some reason. You aren't giving enough, my friend. Your guilt for lack of altruistic participation echoes every time you feel that need to scream it's virtues. Your goal of mandating altruistic principles creates harm by mandating a culture of guilt. Guilt is the top controlling agent besides force. Ask the pope, he knows!

[quote name='heretidcked']
If I'm shedding any tears at this point, its from uncontrollable laughter. :lol:[/quote] People show fear in many ways, don't fret it, I won't hurt you

 

[alonzomourning23]

After reading your response to hereticked I'd like to call you the master of distorting and twisting words and arguing against an idea that was never presented. Problem is, it is so blatantly obvious when you do it that I can't give you that title.

 

[bmulligan]

Your freedom is at odds with human rights and human dignity, that should not be the case.

You constantly do this alonzo, and it's absolutely fasle. Freedom is not a zero sum gain. There is no conservation law that applies here. First of all freedom is not given it's protected. Therefore freedom is not given away to people at the expense of others. There is no set value or amount of freedom that gets used up. It's a false picture, like an escher impossibility. Wealth is also similar principle. Just becuase wealth is created and accrued by one person, doesn't necessarily mean it's being taken away from another, unless of course that rich man is going into poor peoples houses and stealing thri quarters. Another example of your lack of understanding of the concepts of liberty, economics, wealth creation, and the concept of money.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']After reading your response to hereticked I'd like to call you the master of distorting and twisting words and arguing against an idea that was never presented. Problem is, it is so blatantly obvious when you do it that I can't give you that title.[/quote]

It seems that way only becuase the meaning of certain words are lost by people like you who detest definitions, abhorre absolutes, and covet the culture of moral reletivism.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']

Your freedom is at odds with human rights and human dignity, that should not be the case.

You constantly do this alonzo, and it's absolutely fasle. Freedom is not a zero sum gain. There is no conservation law that applies here. First of all freedom is not given it's protected. Therefore freedom is not given away to people at the expense of others. There is no set value or amount of freedom that gets used up. It's a false picture, like an escher impossibility. Wealth is also similar principle. Just becuase wealth is created and accrued by one person, doesn't necessarily mean it's being taken away from another, unless of course that rich man is going into poor peoples houses and stealing thri quarters. Another example of your lack of understanding of the concepts of liberty, economics, wealth creation, and the concept of money.[/quote]

It seems like almost every society suffers from this same misunderstanding, no matter how free they are considered. Show me examples of your beliefs working. You said yourself (earlier) that such a society does not exist. With your logic (that people who share my opinion fail to understand liberty, economic, wealth creation and money) modern western societies should be complete and utter failues. Particularly countries such as sweden and denmark. You're ignoring reality, you are not arguing that simply your system works better, but that the system in place is a complete failure. You keep shouting that it doesn't work, you can't turn a lion into a vegetarian, but you never explain why the western world use these principles and are not failure. And it isn't that "more freedom equal less human rights and decency", it's that increased freedom allows others to trample over part of the population. Or that it stops the government from being able to give assistance, and makes the poor dependant on the whims of their greedy (you stated your agree with humans being greedy) fellow man. One indirectly affects the other. It's not "if a then b", it's "if a then b, if b then c, if c then d, therefore a=d". You are also talking about freedom simply in terms of government administered (or protected) freedoms. You fail to see that the freedoms of one person can trample on the freedoms of another, even without any help from the government.

Though two things, one, why do you always ignore the argument that people may suffer do to your freedom? You never really answer that, you say that "people will become more responsible" or "some will improve", or half answer, but you never really say whether you agree or disagree with that, that a good amount of people will be worse off. Even if it doesn't sound good, you should say either- Yes, living conditions for many will suffer but the increased freedom is worth it. Or say- No, the increased freedom will provide people with the ability to rise out of poverty, and improve the living conditions of the poor. You should be able to state the downsides of your own beliefs, if you believe they exist. You don't seem to want to say it. You refuse to confront the downsides of your own belief. At the same time, you don't argue that they don't exist either. Second, you're overly concerned with principles. Your attitude is "I don't care what works, all I care about is what's right", sometimes its better to settle for the lesser of two evils (though I don't view my own belief system as the lesser of two evils) than it is to take the high road into a brick wall.

I can just imagine you as president "thank you four our freedom mr mulligan. Could you please spare some change?"

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']After reading your response to hereticked I'd like to call you the master of distorting and twisting words and arguing against an idea that was never presented. Problem is, it is so blatantly obvious when you do it that I can't give you that title.[/quote]

It seems that way only becuase the meaning of certain words are lost by people like you who detest definitions, abhorre absolutes, and covet the culture of moral reletivism.[/quote]

You've shown that you don't know definitions, labeling democrats, and the values that run western society etc. as communist.

Absolutes look nice, easy to understand, but start observing other cultures and societies and you realize that the concept of absolutes are a myth. Even if there are absolutes, we are so englufed in our own cultures thinking that we'd never be able to know what they are. There are a few principles that societies should pursue, safety for their people, happiness of their people, ensuring basic needs are met etc., but then again if a practice that is supported by ALL (not just the majority) in a community negatively effects one of those principles, then democracy should win out.

I don't argue for moral relativism in practice, I believe in international laws and such (which is in direct opposition in many instances), so I do not believe in moral relativism in the traditional sense. But simply on an intellectual level I'm not exactly opposed to moral relativism, since all rules and laws are constructed by society. As certain as something is to us, it is only seen that way because our society has taught us so. I can give you plenty of examples of illegal, immoral, despicable practices in our society that, in other societies, are considered essential, beneficial, and accepted by all as important facts of life. If you want them just ask.

To the point though, I constantly see arguments made by hereticked (not that I agreed with many of his arguments), or myself, that are unrecognizable once you've interpreted it. You argued that liberals want to be like china, pointing out even the social freedoms limited in China. That ws never suggested in anyones post, let alone hereticked, and was simply an argument you made up.

 

[MorPhiend]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']After reading your response to hereticked I'd like to call you the master of distorting and twisting words and arguing against an idea that was never presented. Problem is, it is so blatantly obvious when you do it that I can't give you that title.[/quote]

It seems that way only becuase the meaning of certain words are lost by people like you who detest definitions, abhorre absolutes, and covet the culture of moral reletivism.[/quote]

You've shown that you don't know definitions, labeling democrats, and the values that run western society etc. as communist.

Absolutes look nice, easy to understand, but start observing other cultures and societies and you realize that the concept of absolutes are a myth. Even if there are absolutes, we are so englufed in our own cultures thinking that we'd never be able to know what they are. There are a few principles that societies should pursue, safety for their people, happiness of their people, ensuring basic needs are met etc., but then again if a practice that is supported by ALL (not just the majority) in a community negatively effects one of those principles, then democracy should win out.

I don't argue for moral relativism in practice, I believe in international laws and such (which is in direct opposition in many instances), so I do not believe in moral relativism in the traditional sense. But simply on an intellectual level I'm not exactly opposed to moral relativism, since all rules and laws are constructed by society. As certain as something is to us, it is only seen that way because our society has taught us so. I can give you plenty of examples of illegal, immoral, despicable practices in our society that, in other societies, are considered essential, beneficial, and accepted by all as important facts of life. If you want them just ask.

To the point though, I constantly see arguments made by Hereticked (not that I agreed with many of his arguments), or myself, that are unrecognizable once you've interpreted it. You argued that liberals want to be like china, pointing out even the social freedoms limited in China. That ws never suggested in anyones post, let alone hereticked, and was simply an argument you made up.[/quote]

The problem, alonzo, is that Hereticked does the exact same thing. And if you mention something that he cannot come up with a response to (either an intelligent or snide reply, doesn't matter) he just ignores it and never acknowledges it's existence. Even if you point it out a few times, he acts like you never said anything. It's not worth his time to face the truth. I think that most of us who have posted in here could have an intellectual conversation and help others to see our own views in a good light. But Hereticked is not interested in rational conversation. If you don't agree with him 100% on every point, you are evil and stupid. And by doing such, he causes a rift, which makes it so the rest of the people can't have a pleasant conversation because you have to be on either extreme. I think that everyone has plausible points. But some just seem to think that they are omniscient. Like I have said before: "The only thing you can do with a fanatic is buy him/her a Coke."

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='MorPhiend']
The problem, alonzo, is that Hereticked does the exact same thing. And if you mention something that he cannot come up with a response to (either an intelligent or snide reply, doesn't matter) he just ignores it and never acknowledges it's existence. Even if you point it out a few times, he acts like you never said anything. It's not worth his time to face the truth. I think that most of us who have posted in here could have an intellectual conversation and help others to see our own views in a good light. But Hereticked is not interested in rational conversation. If you don't agree with him 100% on every point, you are evil and stupid. And by doing such, he causes a rift, which makes it so the rest of the people can't have a pleasant conversation because you have to be on either extreme. I think that everyone has plausible points. But some just seem to think that they are omniscient. Like I have said before: "The only thing you can do with a fanatic is buy him/her a Coke."[/quote]

I haven't said I agreed with hereticked (I said I didn't agree with much of his posts). He seems to go off into fantasy land half the time, but he doesn't seem to make completely absurd connections as often as bmulligan. Though the rest of your comment can apply to both.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']I have never advocated the absence of government regulation of commerce. And absurd notion, to say the least. Government's job is to protect each individual from enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone depriving you of your rights must be called to answer to the authorities(the people) and their representatives(the government).[/quote]

Then we finally agree on something. Though I highly doubt we'll ever agree on how much is needed.


[quote name='bmulligan']So you want to blame the corporations, not the government or the people?[/quote]

I blame our leadership for allowing themselves to be corrupted by corporate influence as well, but if you're thinking no blame need be assigned to the very entities that pollute our air and water, using every cheat and loophole they can find, all in the name of making money..... you're crazy.


[quote name='bmulligan']Intersting that someone like you who praises the slavery of one citizen to another would be against the slavery instituted by a 'corporation'. We have no choice when a majority controls the government, but we DO have a choice when we buy a product, or take employment with a company.[/quote]

When you're starving and can't support your family, no, there isn't a choice.

I don't support any form of slavery, you are supporting the exact kind of economic slavery that China practices today and it will only become more prevalent in the United States as corporate power and corruption expands.


[quote name='bmulligan']On the contrary, you would love to copy China's method of control. Control over freedom, choices, behavior, labor, wealth, and state controlled moral conditioning. All to save the earth, and for the good of humanity as a whole. You just put a differnt feather on it and call it macaroni.[/quote]

Social mobility is the ultimate freedom, one you preach but your philosophy actually discourages. In a society that is not dominated by corporate power (fascism) the people have plenty of choices of what to do and where to work. That is the system we have now and the system I endorse, but it is rapidly disappearing. Controlling peoples behavior? Only when its harmful to society/infringes on other peoples right. Another thing you claim to endorse but you do not realize your own philosophy is helping to destroy. The ability to organize is the ultimate freedom for labor. I'm all for it, are you? And when I think of moral conditioning, the first thing that pops into my head is conservative christians with their desire to inject religion into government and insane libertarians who think all society should be ruled by the laws of economics, rather than just..... economics being ruled by the laws of economics. Who's been conditioned?

Your argument that I endorse China's form of government...... well it doesn't even look good on paper. I have no idea why you said it. Desperation?


[quote name='bmulligan']Yet, individuals who seek profit are perfectly capable of organizing and lobbying the government for their own special interest. Government is all about special interest. Everyone has their own special interest. Representatives are hired by voters to represent their special interests in the congress. If I worked for a company and they wanted to lobby for the elimination of taxes so that I could make a better wage, shouldn't that company be allowed to represent my interest too? You seem to forget that companies, while considered people by the courts, are really just gropus of individuals just like any other group with it's own set of interests. Again, you can't seem to see things for what they are, because you so badly want them to be a reflection of your imagination. [/quote]

No, not everyone does have a special interest. Everyone has common interests though, and those are the ones especially that need to be protected. THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT IS INSTITUTED. We all need to breathe the same air, we need rules by which people who play the game of business must follow, we need an infrastructure to have any commerce at all, we need to know that our drinking water is safe, and so on, and so on

Those are not "special interests" and that you would equate them with corporations who lobby to DESTROY some of those safeguards so that they can make more money, shows just how sick your mindset really is. Relfection of MY imagination? You're living in ing dreamland.



[quote name='bmulligan']I'm only tring to keep up with your *snorts and such. Looking in the mirror must be hard for you do do in the morning, yes? You can dish it out, but can't take it. Try thinking of yourself being made of rubber. If you trhink hard enough, it might come true.[/quote]

On the contrary, I feel great when I wake up in the morning. I know that I'm part of a community, not just a bunch of self-centered asshats that care only for themselves.

You on the other hand, thanks to your philosophy and your mentality, must feel so utterly alone. Does it get lonely sometimes bmulligan?

Don't worry, someday you'll find someone to "love", (maybe) and you can look at her as nothing but a self centered individual too.


[quote name='bmulligan']I know you are, but what am I............I like this game. It makes me feel young again for some reason.[/quote]

I GUESS so!

I haven't heard that "rubber and glue" stuff since grade school.


[quote name='hereticked'] You aren't giving enough, my friend. Your guilt for lack of altruistic participation echoes every time you feel that need to scream it's virtues. Your goal of mandating altruistic principles creates harm by mandating a culture of guilt. Guilt is the top controlling agent besides force. [/quote]

I've given to several charities and I sponsor a child in the Phillipines. None of this is done out of "guilt". I do it because I want to support those causes and because I want to make someones life just a little bit better. And no, that doesn't give me "A CLAIM TO HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN LIFE!!!!111111", the reply that I know is coming from your mental archive of BS.

You can associate them in your words all you like, guilt and giving, guilt and altruism. Repeat your propganda over and over and over. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you a sad little man.


[quote name='heretidcked']People show fear in many ways, don't fret it, I won't hurt you[/quote]

Fear?

I have nothing to fear from someone who is nothing but a beast, someone who bases his entire life philosophy on greed. It makes you utterly predictable and therefore easy to deal with. It also makes you repugnant, but certainly no more "horrifying" than your average survival horror game. :lol:


[quote name='heretidcked']It seems that way only becuase the meaning of certain words are lost by people like you who detest definitions, abhorre absolutes, and covet the culture of moral reletivism.[/quote]

"the culture of moral relativsm!"

Are you listening to Limbaugh as you type out your posts?

Morals are not absolute. That's not a theory, it's not propaganda, its a ing fact. Anyone who has studied other cultures knows that what is morally reprehensible in one culture can be found very much the norm, or even the good, in another culture. Yes many cultures have certain morals or ideas in common, but that does not make them an absolute.

Its THAT fact that YOU can't stand. You want absolutes in a world that has few. You crave the black and white, the easily definable, YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WITHOUT IT. Just like people who follow an organized religion out of fear can't bare the thought of living life without easily framed ideas of "good" and "evil", without the absolute cloud being, and without absolute justice after death.

Quite frankly, your philosophy and organized religion aren't all that different. You both deny reality out of fear and cling to absolutes that don't exist.


[quote name='MorPhiend']The problem, alonzo, is that Hereticked does the exact same thing.[/quote]

[quote name='MorPhiend']Hereticked is not interested in rational conversation.[/quote]

Ok... so you claim that I'm "doing the exact same thing" as bmulligan when it comes to "ignoring certain points", but then you say that I'm the only one who isn't interested in a rational conversation.

Nice double standard you got there.

But its a false premise to begin with. Just because I'm not quoting the entire paragraph doesn't mean that I'm not responding to it, it usually just means I'm trying to highlight a certain counterpoint because i feel its the most important to the discussion.


[quote name='MorPhiend']If you don't agree with him 100% on every point, you are evil and stupid.[/quote]

I may think you're stupid, but I'm not going to call you stupid unless you resort to name calling.

Evil? I don't know where you got that from any of my posts...... you guys are the one who believe in the black and white, the absolute ideas of good and evil, not me. Don't you dare associate me with your ridiculously narrow view of the world.


[quote name='alonzomourning23']He seems to go off into fantasy land half the time[/quote]

If by "going off into fantasy land", you mean "arguing passionately", then guilty as charged.

If you want to be a doormat for the (anything-but-objective) objectivists, that's your business. I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[Trancendental]

Just look at American railroads at the turn of the century if you want to see how far corporations will go if unchecked. Or listen to some of those Enron tapes in which Cali power plants are closed down for the sole reason of creating scarcity and raising electricity prices.

The current state of corporate corruption in the government is a very serious issue that gets too little media attention. Then again Media=Corporation, and media is smart enough to kiss the asses of the FCC (and those voting bloc evangelists) by lightening up on the boobies in exchange for more monopolistic control of the airwaves.

Clearchannel Wants You to support Our Leader

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/20041123_mysterious_geor.php

 

[MorPhiend]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='MorPhiend']
The problem, alonzo, is that Hereticked does the exact same thing. And if you mention something that he cannot come up with a response to (either an intelligent or snide reply, doesn't matter) he just ignores it and never acknowledges it's existence. Even if you point it out a few times, he acts like you never said anything. It's not worth his time to face the truth. I think that most of us who have posted in here could have an intellectual conversation and help others to see our own views in a good light. But Hereticked is not interested in rational conversation. If you don't agree with him 100% on every point, you are evil and stupid. And by doing such, he causes a rift, which makes it so the rest of the people can't have a pleasant conversation because you have to be on either extreme. I think that everyone has plausible points. But some just seem to think that they are omniscient. Like I have said before: "The only thing you can do with a fanatic is buy him/her a Coke."[/quote]

I haven't said I agreed with hereticked (I said I didn't agree with much of his posts). He seems to go off into fantasy land half the time, but he doesn't seem to make completely absurd connections as often as bmulligan. Though the rest of your comment can apply to both.[/quote]

I realize that, but you haven't exactly attempted to go head to head with him either. You may be right though about both sides. But the past couple of pages I have just skimmed instead of reading in depth because it has just turned into an episode of The O'Reilly Factor with four guests on all at once trying to scream over the top of the other one. I enjoy that show, except for when people close their minds.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='MorPhiend']
The problem, alonzo, is that Hereticked does the exact same thing. And if you mention something that he cannot come up with a response to (either an intelligent or snide reply, doesn't matter) he just ignores it and never acknowledges it's existence. Even if you point it out a few times, he acts like you never said anything. It's not worth his time to face the truth. I think that most of us who have posted in here could have an intellectual conversation and help others to see our own views in a good light. But Hereticked is not interested in rational conversation. If you don't agree with him 100% on every point, you are evil and stupid. And by doing such, he causes a rift, which makes it so the rest of the people can't have a pleasant conversation because you have to be on either extreme. I think that everyone has plausible points. But some just seem to think that they are omniscient. Like I have said before: "The only thing you can do with a fanatic is buy him/her a Coke."[/quote]

I haven't said I agreed with hereticked (I said I didn't agree with much of his posts). He seems to go off into fantasy land half the time, but he doesn't seem to make completely absurd connections as often as bmulligan. Though the rest of your comment can apply to both.[/quote]

I realize that, but you haven't exactly attempted to go head to head with him either. You may be right though about both sides. But the past couple of pages I have just skimmed instead of reading in depth because it has just turned into an episode of The O'Reilly Factor with four guests on all at once trying to scream over the top of the other one. I enjoy that show, except for when people close their minds.[/quote]

Yeah that O'Reilly is one open-minded guy. I think he's planning to go see the Dalai Lama this summer, and then when he comes back he's going to kick back with some feminists and lesbian moms for a week to get their side of the story.

Or maybe he'll just do an 5-minute closer story about another porn site run from a campus dorm by some super slut and use it to blast liberal values (but not without spewing out some hypocritical sexual innuendos about his vast sexual prowess and experience)

I wonder which way he'll go...

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='MorPhiend']
I realize that, but you haven't exactly attempted to go head to head with him either. You may be right though about both sides. But the past couple of pages I have just skimmed instead of reading in depth because it has just turned into an episode of The O'Reilly Factor with four guests on all at once trying to scream over the top of the other one. I enjoy that show, except for when people close their minds.[/quote]

If you're talking about bmulligan, I have argued him more than I've argued with anyone else on this board. It seems half my posts are arguing with bmulligan. If you're talking about hereticked, he's the liberal equivalent of a limbaugh listener, even using wackos such as mike malloy to back up his beliefs. But, while I often strongly disagree with his logic and the way he presents his ideas, in the end I share a lot of his opinions (but usually in a more moderate form) simply because he's much closer to me on the political spectrum than bmulligan.