• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If I Wanted America to Fail

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,626
3,424
126
Others have property and interest under siege by the 1%, and those assaults are derived from the government, which happens to be owned by the 1%.
Oh, you said it, they do. Any interests the people have or property that gets in the way of the 1% owning everything, will be squashed, including that sliver of government that votes with the people. After all it is only Government and a democratic vote that can end the ownership of of everything by the 1%. And you want to kill that too because your mind was bought and paid for by propaganda just like what we saw in the video. There is no fucker like the fucker who fucks himself.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
That is within the range of possibilities if you remove government regulation. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, doesn't mean the rest of us should.
Tell me...which government regulations do the Republicans want to remove which would justify your use of such crude and extreme political hyperbole?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,626
3,424
126
You need to reread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say those were examples of what happens when govt isnt allowed to run amuck. I was saying those pictures are used to promote the idea our govt should be allowed to run around doing what it pleases.
Why shouldn't a Constitutional democracy run around doing what it pleases. It's called the will of the people. What it can't do is run around doing what it pleases without amending the Constitution. And when you have 5 folk who elect the Bush debacle, and five who say corporations are people and money is speech, it's time for a Constitutional convention revolution. The government can't continue to exist if 5 fuckers can fuck millions.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
You need to reread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say those were examples of what happens when govt isnt allowed to run amuck. I was saying those pictures are used to promote the idea our govt should be allowed to run around doing what it pleases.
I think you need to reread what I wrote. That's exactly the dishonesty I called out, your claim that liberals are using these photos "as proof of what happens when big govt isnt allowed to run amuck." That's not true. The truth is they are using them as "examples of what happens when industry IS allowed to run amok, without a solid framework of environmental regulations to force a reasonable balance between greed and public health." It has nothing to do with the government doing whatever it pleases. It's about not letting business and industry do whatever is cheapest for them, with no concern for the consequences. "Liberals" -- and indeed most rational people -- want government to enact reasonable measures to protect the environment. That's not running amok, that's serving the public interest.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
I think you need to reread what I wrote. That's exactly the dishonesty I called out, your claim that liberals are using these photos "as proof of what happens when big govt isnt allowed to run amuck." That's not true. The truth is they are using them as "examples of what happens when industry IS allowed to run amok, without a solid framework of environmental regulations to force a reasonable balance between greed and public health." It has nothing to do with the government doing whatever it pleases. It's about not letting business and industry do whatever is cheapest for them, with no concern for the consequences. "Liberals" -- and indeed most rational people -- want government to enact reasonable measures to protect the environment. That's not running amok, that's serving the public interest.
Well you clearly miss the irony of using a state run economy as proof. A picture of somalia would be a better example for people to use as it is the anarchy liberals believe people who criticize big govt want. It wasnt dishonest, it was you not understanding how silly it is to use China as an example to criticize people who dont believe in allowing the never ending hand of big govt to keep waving.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,674
3,227
126
You need to reread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say those were examples of what happens when govt isnt allowed to run amuck. I was saying those pictures are used to promote the idea our govt should be allowed to run around doing what it pleases.
The perfect answer to them wanting government to run amok is this:

Government and the 1%(more like the .1%) are one in the same.
They are literally empowering the servants of their enemies.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
I'm wondering if Obama's speech after his defeat is going to be gracious, or angry, bitter and full of malice. I'm betting the latter. There is SO much material out there to use against him. The surface has only been scratched at this point.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,674
3,227
126
Why shouldn't a Constitutional democracy run around doing what it pleases. It's called the will of the people. What it can't do is run around doing what it pleases without amending the Constitution. And when you have 5 folk who elect the Bush debacle, and five who say corporations are people and money is speech, it's time for a Constitutional convention revolution. The government can't continue to exist if 5 fuckers can fuck millions.
It's no better if 1,000 fucks can fuck millions. It's still a single dictation from a distant and unrepresentative government. The solution is not a singularity of power. One does not simply 'walk into Mordor' after they seize such power.

The solution is not to wield it yourself. The solution is to become a Hobbit. Smaller, more local governments can take that corruption and cast it into the fire.

Empower the states, allow state solutions to pass unmolested. Some will be clean and pure, others filthy and polluted. Then the polluted ones will be on their knees, and instead of losing the entire nation you've lost a few Republicans.

If the 1% is coming to smash your eggs, do not place them all in one basket!
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Well you clearly miss the irony of using a state run economy as proof. A picture of somalia would be a better example for people to use as it is the anarchy liberals believe people who criticize big govt want. It wasnt dishonest, it was you not understanding how silly it is to use China as an example to criticize people who dont believe in allowing the never ending hand of big govt to keep waving.
Nope, you're still doing it, trying to change the subject to avoid addressing the issue. Your so-called "irony" is a partisan figment of your ideology. This has nothing to do with these photos originating in China. The point of the photos is showing what happens when industry is allowed to place greed above all else, when there are no effective environmental regulations in place. The location of the photos, be it China, Somalia, or Texas, is completely irrelevant. It is the content that matters.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
Nope, you're still doing it, trying to change the subject to avoid addressing the issue. Your so-called "irony" is a partisan figment of your ideology. This has nothing to do with these photos originating in China. The point of the photos is showing what happens when industry is allowed to place greed above all else, when there are no effective environmental regulations in place. The location of the photos, be it China, Somalia, or Texas, is completely irrelevant. It is the content that matters.
My point has everything to do with the photo's originating in China.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm wondering if Obama's speech after his defeat is going to be gracious, or angry, bitter and full of malice. I'm betting the latter. There is SO much material out there to use against him. The surface has only been scratched at this point.
Whereas nobody is wondering how you will react after his victory (IF he wins, of course). Your anger, bitterness, and malice will only get worse.

In any case, asserting "his defeat" as if it is a certainty is a product of blind, partisan wishful thinking, nothing more. It is still far too early to predict the outcome.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,660
126
The same regulations you guys want to keep the giants from polluting, smash small guys from ever even entering.
GASP, You're right! I was just going to start a hydro fracking gas drilling LLC with my brother. Damn EPA preventing me from competing with the big boys.

RRRRAAAAAGGGEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
My point has everything to do with the photo's originating in China.
Yes, I know. My point is that your point is dishonest. Rather than considering the photos honestly, addressing the point they were intended to raise, you tried to spin them into a phony argument you could attack. "Oh, lookie, liberals don't know China is big government. Loliberals! /smirk." (Paraphrased, of course.) It's a classic straw man. You continuing to hack at your straw man doesn't change the fact it is one.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
Yes, I know. My point is that your point is dishonest. Rather than considering the photos honestly, addressing the point they were intended to raise, you tried to spin them into a phony argument you could attack. "Oh, lookie, liberals don't know China is big government. Loliberals! /smirk." (Paraphrased, of course.) It's a classic straw man. You continuing to hack at your straw man doesn't change the fact it is one.
I did address the point the pictures were intended to raise. The point the pictures were intended to raise was govt knows best by showing us examples of pollution from a country where govt knows best. You are fine to disregard the source of the pictures. The rest of us will critique them as we please.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,660
126
I did address the point the pictures were intended to raise. The point the pictures were intended to raise was govt knows best by showing us examples of pollution from a country where govt knows best. You are fine to disregard the source of the pictures. The rest of us will critique them as we please.
So if there were no regulations on pollution, private industry wouldn't pollute? That's what you're saying?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I saw this a couple days ago and was thinking about posting it. Thanks for saving me the effort and having the usual liberal Democrat suspects beat me with the troll bat. It's a good Republican propaganda piece and one I agree with in some ways. I love that Godwin's Law was invoked so quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Wow, were the leftists frothing about that clip, gotta love it.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
Yes, I know. My point is that your point is dishonest. Rather than considering the photos honestly, addressing the point they were intended to raise, you tried to spin them into a phony argument you could attack. "Oh, lookie, liberals don't know China is big government. Loliberals! /smirk." (Paraphrased, of course.) It's a classic straw man. You continuing to hack at your straw man doesn't change the fact it is one.
So when senseamp claimed capitalism = ecological disaster, that is a logical rational point. But our counter claim of government = ecological disaster is a straw man? You are so intellectually dishonest it is almost beyond belief.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
So if there were no regulations on pollution, private industry wouldn't pollute? That's what you're saying?
No. What we are saying is that the more government control you have over the economy, the more corrupt and inefficient it becomes. When government control is absolute, they don't care about pollution at all because they are more concerned with producing the bare minimum for survival at any cost, even when that cost means destruction of the environment. This has been the case in every major industrialized socialist and communist regime that has existed.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,605
126
That's a bunch of bunk. We tried the deregulated approach, and had a huge oil spill in the gulf, the government properly put the brakes on drilling until environmental and safety concerns are addressed.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
And chooses not to exercise it. Not something we should ever let happen in America.
Really. So if Solyndra went to Obama and said "look, if you let us dump all our toxic waste into the river we can produce your solar panels at a good price and make you look good for your election", Obama would say no? So what if a few hundred people get cancer from pollution. It's "for the greater good" after all!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,605
126
Really. So if Solyndra went to Obama and said "look, if you let us dump all our toxic waste into the river we can produce your solar panels at a good price and make you look good for your election", Obama would say no? So what if a few hundred people get cancer from pollution. It's "for the greater good" after all!
Yes, he would say no, just because you and your party are completely corrupt, doesn't mean everyone else is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY