Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Way to go, Republican loser 21
GOP governor of Michigan happy with last minute, anti-capitalist edit to legislation put in by another Republican.
At least Snyder has a plethora of lake to go jump in.
I grow increasingly Independent by the day.
At least Snyder has a plethora of lake to go jump in.
I grow increasingly Independent by the day.
Not surprising (Score:2)
The GOP isn't any more pro capitalist than the Dems. They just like a different set of cronies.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP isn't any more pro capitalist than the Dems. They just like a different set of cronies.
Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).
So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easi
Re: (Score:2)
Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).
You have fallen for the Republican trick.
False.
Under capitalism, there would not be any minimum wage, and government employees wouldn't even exist because there would be no such thing as public property or public services that require public employees.
You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.
But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Sc
Re: (Score:2)
In a capitalist society, all services that government does today would be provided by private companies instead.
No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.
I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.
Re: (Score:1)
You really think that people who "donate" to political campaigns don't expect a return on their investments? Would you expect me, as a sponsor to continue donating money to a politician who doesn't agree with my views and vote the way I expect him to? Name one politician that is not better connected than blender that has real influence beyond his choice of toilet paper. What is it like on your planet?
And you know I'm totally for letting people offer all the money and gifts to the politicians they want. Citi
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that people who "donate" to political campaigns don't expect a return on their investments?
I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.
But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.
Scott Walker is taking money just like all the others
Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.
... and lot of it from a somewhat famous Las Vegas casino owner. What's up with that?
What's wrong with that? This isn't an argumen
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, well, your examples suck. They are just like the rest. And unions and democrats, and communists and fascists are not anti-capitalists by any means. They are just another player in the game, with their own interests. You too, are a player, and you have picked the team you play for, and by the grace of your culture, ancestry, location of birth you enjoy many advantages. Of course you won't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't fit inside your narrative, it encompasses it though, outside your visible uni
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, your examples suck. They are just like the rest.
Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.
And unions and democrats, and communists and fascists are not anti-capitalists by any means.
Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.
... by the grace of your culture, ancestry, location of birth you enjoy many advantages
Ad hominem.
It doesn't fit inside your narrative
Non sequitur.
You said that your preferred faction, the republicans, are better than the democrats in the corruption department, and I am telling you outright that you are full of shit
What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"
And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but y
Re: (Score:1)
You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"
Based on the 138 convictions, more than any other to date...
You're just standing up for your tribe. You are biologically driven... You will not see or hear anything that disparages it. You actually try make like you don't understand the nature of the very capitalism you so vigorously defend. It's all good. I am humored by your need to respond in such a fashion, says a lot.
And there were no *Ad hominems* or *Non sequit
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the 138 convictions, more than any other to date...
I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.
That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.
The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad ho
Re: (Score:1)
Such is your view of things... C'est la vie...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my view of things is that we should rely on reason and evidence. Yours is that we should rely on fallacies and innuendo.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you this dumb in real life, or just on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You're welcome
it's corruption (Score:1)
It's not near as sinister as intentionally trying to give capitalism a few good licks, because one despises it. But it is criminal.
Re: (Score:1)
p.s. And I don't mean to imply anything like I think it's like Lefties' stupid idea of a "hate crime", where somehow the crime is worse if there's something more sinister going on behind it. The damage is the damage, so the crime is the crime. Being primarily motivated by trashing the system versus primarily by empowering oneself doesn't make the crime any worse. It just means there's something additional the voters ought to be watching out for from that "representative".