Communist China funding takeover of America by Republican Party.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
We are going round and round on this one Werepossum. You are being partisan and accusing me of being partisan just because you assume I am as partisan as you are. Your constant mention of Allred - whom I despise - is not helping you make your point.

And this business about lawyers is a bad analogy. I never said that these allegations amount to making out a legal burden of proof in a court of law. What I am saying is that logically, it is rational to assume the absolute worst of any organization that refuses to dislose its funding and motives to the public. And yes, that includes Allred or whatever example on the left you want to come up with, since I know for you this is only about right versus left and which side "wins." Anyway, no, in a logical sense, asking for proof is ludicrous when no one other than the accused has access to proof. It may surprise you to learn that there are cases in the law where a defendant having sole access to evidence can shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. Sometimes, though not always, the law tracks common sense. In any event, this isn't about what is necessary to prevail in a court of law. It is about what it is logical for people to assume.

As to the Chamber of Commerce in particular, which was the example brought up in the OP, you seem to be arguing that they are transparent because everyone knows they have a "pro-business" agenda. False. It isn't the organization's agenda that is the issue. It's who is funding it. That part is not transparent. And yes, that principle applies to any organization, regardless of its agenda.

In my opinion there needs to be disclosure of funding for political advertisements. This may not solve every problem of someone like Allred, or some equivalent on the other side of the spectrum. But it IS very much necessary.

- wolf

Then let us look at the issue from different angles. In 2008 Obama received over $400 million from special interest groups for the general election. Many of those groups do not disclose their donor lists. Should we then assume Obama became president on the backs of Communists, child molesters and Nazis until he proves otherwise? This isn't even counting the ads those groups ran on their own, but just the actual donations to the Obama campaign. Anybody really think Move-On or ThinkProgress or the SEIU publishes lists of all their donors? Or that none of them are foreigners?

Now let's look at known donations from foreign sources. President Obama was the leading recipient of money from BP. BP as you know is a foreign company. Even in this heavily Republican-trending year, donations from American offices of foreign corporations are in favor of Democrats. Are we to assume then that Democrats in general are backed by a foreign plot?

Finally, as Moonie referenced let's look at the issue of whether or not Obama is even a citizen. As a candidate (if not even prior, during his run for the Senate) Obama proved his citizenship sufficiently to satisfy those who moderate such things. Birthers now make accusations over everything from birth certificates obtained well after the fact, to his traveling on foreign passports, to his claiming to be a citizen of Kenya and/or Indonesia. Should the burden to disprove these things be on Obama? Do you REALLY endorse guilty until proven innocent? Consider that a concerted effort by a relatively small number of people making such accusations could well take up most of his time and energy disproving. As well, some of these may well be true. If Obama can be proven to have claimed Kenyan citizenship at some point, shall we continue with the theme of guilty until proven innocent and throw him out of office?

This is nothing more than a desperate, laughable attempt by Democrats to establish an issue that doesn't involve their own record. If it works, they'll be able to use it. If not, and they can force the Chamber to reveal all its donors, they can at least punish those companies not toeing the Party line. Anyone who didn't scream at the same issue when Obama did it two years ago is completely partisan in doing so now.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
I disagree. It is not that I believe greed is nonexistent in the USA, but I believe the biggest threat to us is that this greed is less and less limited by risk.

Greed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

That entire interview is on youtube, btw.

What is greed? In my rural area we are mostly just lowly farmers, and none of us are greedy. We only want to own the land that adjoins us.

Giving examples of how greed has supposedly helped society proves nothing any more then giving examples of how greed hurts society proves that greed is bad. I do think it's a safe assumption to say that too much of most anything is bad.

Einstein never constructed his Theory of Realitivity to make money and amass a fortune. He did it to find truth, for his own enlightenment. We live in a society that has become accustomed to measuring one's worth only by how much money one makes or has. Winning is everything and is strived for at all costs, including lying, cheating, etc. That is whaty is wrong with our society. It has been this way for some time. I remember the black kid back back in the day who killed someone for his pair of tennis shoes. I hear now it's happening over iPods.

Something has to change or greed WILL be the death of America, at least the America I know and love. Ambition doesn not equal greed. They are two different things
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I disagree. It is not that I believe greed is nonexistent in the USA, but I believe the biggest threat to us is that this greed is less and less limited by risk.

Greed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

That entire interview is on youtube, btw.

I agree completely. Greed, to the extent that it drives one to work harder, try new things, take well-reasoned risks with one's own resources - or as I call it, enlightened self-interest - is the heart of capitalism and therefore human progress. When people game the system to remove risk, this is greed without responsibility and is immensely harmful because usually someone else must take the risk. Ideally our tax laws would be structured so that capital gains representing money actually placed at risk would be taxed at a lower rate and capital gains without risk would be taxed as income, if not higher. I realize though that this would be terribly difficult and more likely than not would simply lead to politicians placing preferred entities in preferred positions. But an executive who exercises stock options based on whatever value his company's stock holds at the moment risks nothing for large profits. Much worse are those companies and individuals who have managed to have their capital and even profits losses made good by taxpayers.

Nobodyknows, wanting to own adjacent lands is now considered greed. On the other hand, wanting to receive part of the reward for your work on them is merely entitlement. Go figure. For my part, if you want to to own more land and it drives you to risk more and/or work more, go for it; you are what drives this country's prosperity.

P.J. - forgot to say but I loved the "two cows" thing, thanks!
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
I agree completely. Greed, to the extent that it drives one to work harder, try new things, take well-reasoned risks with one's own resources - or as I call it, enlightened self-interest - is the heart of capitalism and therefore human progress. When people game the system to remove risk, this is greed without responsibility and is immensely harmful because usually someone else must take the risk. Ideally our tax laws would be structured so that capital gains representing money actually placed at risk would be taxed at a lower rate and capital gains without risk would be taxed as income, if not higher. I realize though that this would be terribly difficult and more likely than not would simply lead to politicians placing preferred entities in preferred positions. But an executive who exercises stock options based on whatever value his company's stock holds at the moment risks nothing for large profits. Much worse are those companies and individuals who have managed to have their capital and even profits losses made good by taxpayers.

Nobodyknows, wanting to own adjacent lands is now considered greed. On the other hand, wanting to receive part of the reward for your work on them is merely entitlement. Go figure. For my part, if you want to to own more land and it drives you to risk more and/or work more, go for it; you are what drives this country's prosperity.
P.J. - forgot to say but I loved the "two cows" thing, thanks!

I'm no quite sure what you mean? Was it OK for Sadam Hussein to want more land/oil? That kind of greed can destroy7 the world. When is enough, enough?

Greed isn't like the desire for food where if you eat too much you get fat and will get to the point where your health will go and you will either die or learn your lesson and diet. Except for a few examples like Bill Gates, most people do everything they can to pass on everything they have to their offspring.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
There are two kinds of conservatives, those who are working for the Communists to destroy America and know it and the few really stupid ones who are working for the Communists to destroy America and don't know it. The Communists have been working for years and years to infiltrate the Republican party like pedophiles have been working their way into the Catholic church, where s presumed mantle of anti Communist vigil and moral vigor hides the real evil.

Yup all of those Republicans and conservatives saying, believing and supporting things like rights, freedom, ect. Meanwhile the Democrats want to take away rights that would hinder them. Don't want you to say what's on your mind and actually want to force a change in the way you think.
Who is totting the Communist China line?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm no quite sure what you mean? Was it OK for Sadam Hussein to want more land/oil? That kind of greed can destroy7 the world. When is enough, enough?

Greed isn't like the desire for food where if you eat too much you get fat and will get to the point where your health will go and you will either die or learn your lesson and diet. Except for a few examples like Bill Gates, most people do everything they can to pass on everything they have to their offspring.

Of course it was okay for Saddam Hussein to want more land and oil. The problem isn't wanting more stuff, the problem lies in what you do to get it, and in what you give up in pursuit of it. Enough is enough when the pursuit is no longer worth the gain, or when you have to do something illegal, immoral or destructive to gain what you want. To say otherwise is to establish a need for someone to arbitrate how much any given person should have, a position not only possessed of huge power but also acting as a break on society's advancement. Imagine if Bill Gates had in 1990 said "You know, I have enough" and simply closed down Microsoft. Anything his empire innovated after that would have had to wait for someone else, if at all. Also, remember that to many people - even many Americans - even so much land as you have is "too much", as everything should be divided equally.

People are fond of saying that money is the root of all evil. However, Timothy actually says "For the love of money is the root of all evil." Wealth, even a surfeit, isn't the problem, it's what people are willing to do to get it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
What is greed? In my rural area we are mostly just lowly farmers, and none of us are greedy. We only want to own the land that adjoins us.

Giving examples of how greed has supposedly helped society proves nothing any more then giving examples of how greed hurts society proves that greed is bad. I do think it's a safe assumption to say that too much of most anything is bad.

Einstein never constructed his Theory of Realitivity to make money and amass a fortune. He did it to find truth, for his own enlightenment. We live in a society that has become accustomed to measuring one's worth only by how much money one makes or has. Winning is everything and is strived for at all costs, including lying, cheating, etc. That is whaty is wrong with our society. It has been this way for some time. I remember the black kid back back in the day who killed someone for his pair of tennis shoes. I hear now it's happening over iPods.

Something has to change or greed WILL be the death of America, at least the America I know and love. Ambition doesn not equal greed. They are two different things

You are fucking strange. Must be from being old or living close to the land. Anyway, when the communist Revulsicans take over they'll put an end to greed. Folk will be dreaming of something to eat rather than their neighbor's car.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
I stand by what I said: it is totally fair to accuse an organization of the worst and most malicious kinds of motives and funding when that organization is the sole holder of all evidence pertaining to said motives and funding. The burden of proof is not on the accuser in this case because the accuser has no access to the evidence which is being concealed and blocked by the accused. So make any infererences you want, including to lawyers. You think your analogy somehow gives me paused because I practice law?

- wolf

Wow, that whole thought is extreme.

The underlined part is contrary to our system - innocent until proven guilty.

Making accusations witout any proof is just McCarthyism, smear you ropponent for political purposes etc.

Apparently there is a law against using foreign funds for US campaigns, as with any other criminal violation we have a system to deal with it, so it should be used.

I still say it's astonishly bad form for our President to be making accusations of criminal activity against a political opponent when even he admits he has zero evidence. Looks like a cynical and naked ploy to merely gets Dems motivated to vote. (Must herd the sheeple to the polls etc)

Fern
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Moonbeam, you are boggling my mind. You have openly advocated communist policies on multiple occasions (all housing being government-owned, for example). You're not against communism - you're totally for it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I disagree. It is not that I believe greed is nonexistent in the USA, but I believe the biggest threat to us is that this greed is less and less limited by risk.

Greed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

That entire interview is on youtube, btw.

Well... Friedman and I disagree... and I disagree with Laffer and most anyone who's influenced Reagan... I'm very much a demand sided thinker! He was too but became senile and ventured away ;)

I found him, Friedman, to provoke interest in finding (via empirical research) alternative causation. For that, I've always found that smiling face of his full of earnest and without malice toward folks who did not agree. The UofC produced lots of folks who can seemingly swim with ease in Ice... whereas I find the softer version a bit more enabling.

Greed in the context I proffer is the motivator for many things... Some of these create wealth and in that creation I've found economic growth which supports life in this Nation. I don't argue that point. What I do argue is the notion that Greed is manifest in the many who seek to approximate the status of their greedy dreams... Therein is the key to their demise. Hence the greatest threat!
If a nation bombs us it only awakens that sleeping giant... If they subvert our political system they awaken revolt which ought to result in a reemergence of our basic system. But if they tickle our greed they create the process that has no foundation and will topple and terminate the many... creating the Dukedoms and Earldoms and serfs and a new Magna Charta...
Economics, as you know, is all about the Social bits... The mindset of the many who are driven beyond their intellect to achieve... They risk with out knowing it... they are puppets manipulated by those who's greed is coupled with the intellect to succeed.
As in the 'Cows' bit above, Enron is a prime example of how 'Nothing' becomes an accepted reality of 'Something' of value... Greed for riches provided exactly what the 'Nothing' ought to have provided...

If we lost everything but the capacity to eat we'd survive but we've learned we must have our cell phones and cars and savings and the rest of it but when that generates folks who don't give a dam that some of our citizens starve something is wrong with that mindset. What does that say about our Economic system? To me it says Greed motivates at the price of another and always will. The greed of our system took the farmer and placed that noble enterprise in the hands of the corporation whose greed is designed to let the lesser folks starve under the guise of a better system of food production. We hardly know our neighbor let alone help them when they are in need but yet common decency and if you believe in God, his notion seems to be we should all care about everyone equally... greed don't allow for that.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
You are fucking strange. Must be from being old or living close to the land. Anyway, when the communist Revulsicans take over they'll put an end to greed. Folk will be dreaming of something to eat rather than their neighbor's car.

LOL, what can I say?

I've always subscribed to the view that we can be more then the sum of our parts. Or money, whatever the case may be.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Moonbeam, you are boggling my mind. You have openly advocated communist policies on multiple occasions (all housing being government-owned, for example). You're not against communism - you're totally for it.

Hello, is anybody home? American government owned, not Communist China owned like you traitors are working for.....

You bastards just use any kind of logic you want, just reach in the toilet and throw something. Shit, talking to the brain dead is hopeless.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Well... Friedman and I disagree... and I disagree with Laffer and most anyone who's influenced Reagan... I'm very much a demand sided thinker! He was too but became senile and ventured away ;)

I found him, Friedman, to provoke interest in finding (via empirical research) alternative causation. For that, I've always found that smiling face of his full of earnest and without malice toward folks who did not agree. The UofC produced lots of folks who can seemingly swim with ease in Ice... whereas I find the softer version a bit more enabling.

Greed in the context I proffer is the motivator for many things... Some of these create wealth and in that creation I've found economic growth which supports life in this Nation. I don't argue that point. What I do argue is the notion that Greed is manifest in the many who seek to approximate the status of their greedy dreams... Therein is the key to their demise. Hence the greatest threat!
If a nation bombs us it only awakens that sleeping giant... If they subvert our political system they awaken revolt which ought to result in a reemergence of our basic system. But if they tickle our greed they create the process that has no foundation and will topple and terminate the many... creating the Dukedoms and Earldoms and serfs and a new Magna Charta...
Economics, as you know, is all about the Social bits... The mindset of the many who are driven beyond their intellect to achieve... They risk with out knowing it... they are puppets manipulated by those who's greed is coupled with the intellect to succeed.
As in the 'Cows' bit above, Enron is a prime example of how 'Nothing' becomes an accepted reality of 'Something' of value... Greed for riches provided exactly what the 'Nothing' ought to have provided...

If we lost everything but the capacity to eat we'd survive but we've learned we must have our cell phones and cars and savings and the rest of it but when that generates folks who don't give a dam that some of our citizens starve something is wrong with that mindset. What does that say about our Economic system? To me it says Greed motivates at the price of another and always will. The greed of our system took the farmer and placed that noble enterprise in the hands of the corporation whose greed is designed to let the lesser folks starve under the guise of a better system of food production. We hardly know our neighbor let alone help them when they are in need but yet common decency and if you believe in God, his notion seems to be we should all care about everyone equally... greed don't allow for that.

Finally I think I get it. What you're calling greed I'd call ego, the mask that covers self hate, the compulsion to compete with another and beat him because feeling worthless drives you to need to feel superior. It's all about a need to fill a self inflicted vacuum.

Self hate is the root of all evil. It is what creates the whole notion of evil in the first place. There isn't any evil but the belief in lies.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Communist China already owns us. They're keeping our economy and our very own government alive. Obama needs to prove to the American people that his salary, the salary of his cabinet, the salaries of the czars and the salaries of top leaders in Congress are not being paid for by the ChiComs. He needs to show us a breakdown of where that money is flowing. If they can provide proof that their salaries and benefits are not being paid by the ChiComs, I'll stand corrected.

The burden of proof is on them. Until then they're all just agents of the Communist Chinese.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Why do you feel so worthless Moonbeam? Poor little child... one day you'll leave your room and see the real world. Until then, the rest of us will watch after you. It's ok, little child.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about me. I devour life with gusto and appetite. I am inspired by the knowledge and certainty that, while I may just feel like a piece of shit, you actually are.

Note how it is the thought of turds that draws the shit fly. Poor sad freak, both the turds and fly, your own creation.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Hello, is anybody home? American government owned, not Communist China owned like you traitors are working for.....

You bastards just use any kind of logic you want, just reach in the toilet and throw something. Shit, talking to the brain dead is hopeless.

Now who owns the American government?

Who is providing them money?

Fern
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Looks like chamber of commerce is not going to disclose its donors, so they could be Chinese for all we know.