I am one of the sane ones but the establishment on both sides is pretty close in what they want. They Both want big activist governments that pick winners and losers. They each want to be in charge of the picking. The only difference is they each want to pick their sides. I am a true con. Smaller less powerful federal government with more money and power being pushed as close to the people as we get it.
Bob Dole: "Nobody likes Ted Cruz"
- Thread starter BrianNole09
- Start date
Then you are totally off base on your accusations and I don't even know how you would accuse me of this when I'm on here every day railing on the bankers and the rich.
While defending their rights to make the rules. Your philosophy is schizophrenic, ridiculous and unworkable. That's why it's never been tried. You should thank me for pointing out the inherent incoherence of it all. When you remove labor rights in favor of capital rights you are placing gold at the top of your value structure. When you do that you are putting the bankers in charge. Your philosophies are the very reason you are so upset all the time.
When have I ever said that they should make the rules? Never. Once. Ever.
I believe in private property rights. I believe that the owner of a business should be able to hire and fire at will and, if they want to have a prayer meeting, they should be able to. From this, you told me that I was in favor of the rich making the rules. Then you say that the rich constitutes people that own the gold. At this time, I pointed out to you that not all private businesses are run by rich people. Yet, you still are holding tight to this theory that I'm in favor of the rich people making the rules, even though, on a daily basis, I rant and rave about how much I hate rich people.
Really? LOL!
Edit: I should clarify that I hate rich people who abuse the system. I don't hate them if they made their money legitimately.
Ah, the old "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind getting searched" line.
Sieg Heil!
Yes, you are choosing capital rights over labor rights. That's why the bankers run the world. You really need to learn to connect the dots better.
The bankers run the world because they own the money supply. That's a completely different issue.
Everytime you strengthen capital and weaken labor you are a friend to the banker class.
Regardless of whether I've done right or wrong, I've never been searched without probable cause. Nor do I know of anyone who has.
Quit making up reasons to be angry and enjoy life. Just give it a try. Maybe start tomorrow.
Oh, just because you and the people you know haven't been subjected to unconstitutional searches, that means it's not happening?
Brilliant. I suppose manatees don't exist because you've never seen one of those, either, huh?
LOL! No you aren't. How did you even come up with that? Bankers are strengthened by the national debt, and the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking, and running to Congress to pay for bad policies and being reckless. Banks aren't empowered because someone wants to hold a prayer meeting in their private business.
I'm not liked on HROT...and I relish in it...trust me.
There are no 'labor rights' and under NO system has there been 'labor rights' and you know why? Because 'labor' isn't what drives the world. Labor is the wheel on the ground...not the one that steers the car.
And quite honestly it's going to get worse as automation takes more and more low and no skill labor.
Well if ANYONE should know about who can and can't win it's Bob Dole...
So did he know he was going to get smoked in `96 and just go through the motions?
So did he know he was going to get smoked in `96 and just go through the motions?
I'm pretty sure he did. Republicans had to "wait their turn" back then and he drew the unfortunate straw of facing Clinton in a re-election bid.
Most in D.C. hate Cruz because he is not afraid and won't play by the establishment rules. Cruz was sent to drain the swampand top the establishment gravy train. That alone is enough to earn my vote.
Of course they are. How can you even make the honest argument that empowering capital isn't to the advantage of the capital class?
Oh, I've seen a manatee my friend. Several of them. I've never seen you though. Maybe you're the one that's not real.
Look it up, there are many labor rights. You know that because they are under attack often. Honestly people, deal with the real.
Of course they do. Lots of them. Probably most jobs are the result of spending by the labor class. Those are the job creators. Your team is always getting demand and supply wrong. It's demand first, that the labor, then the supply. Jobs are created because labor has money to spend to demand them.
LOL, I can refute that argument easily.
Were people demanding the Pet Rock before it was created?
No. Demand is created when innovators create new things, better things, or cheaper things.
Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
Everyone has a love/hate relationship with me...especially since they are under the delusion I am something called "Arb"...
Not if people don't have homes to fill with mouse traps. The pet rock took off because redistributive policies had created a middle class with sufficient disposable income to spend on pet rocks. Introduce that pet rock in Haiti and see how it goes.
My point exactly, I'm glad you've come around. First people must have security and stability and their basic "living" needs met. Then they can spend money on fun things and the economy grows. Redistribution isn't just for the poors. It's for company owners too. Redistribution is how you grow the pie and make capitalism work.
You grow the government that way, because the government has to take a cut of the money stolen from the rich and given to the poor.
How do you think Robin Hood fed his Merry Men?
It is far more efficient if the government isn't involved in it.
That just means no merry men. Merry men are labors too. They are the job creators buying all the pet rocks.
Similar threads
