Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:

I think it would be a good idea.

I feel the same way about free market capitalism.

It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.

If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.

...

People pointing to the Western economies and saying that capitalism doesn’t work is as incorrect as pointing to Stalin’s murder of millions of innocent people and blaming it on socialism. Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks, Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets, government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation, corruption of government officials, creation of a system of government-sponsored rating agencies which had at its core a model of bribery, and other government-induced distortions of the free market, things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's take a deep breath and take it down a notch. @quantumushroom that is a borderline racist comment, please refrain. @GenjiKilpatrick I sense your frustration but that's an inappropriate way to respond and an ad hom, so please refrain. This an official warning. Thanks.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yeah QuantumDickface, since her surname is Sanchez she obviously unloads the van full of pregnant undocumented immigrants at every polling station in Orange County in order to rig every election she's run for.
So @dag, if I heard from an anonymous source that @quantumushroom is clearly a racist & moronic meatbag filled to the brim with human feces..
..it's not technically breaking the AD HOM rule since it's only hearsay, right?
>> ^quantumushroom:
The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.

Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

Yeah QuantumDickface, since her surname is Sanchez she obviously unloads the van full of pregnant undocumented immigrants at every polling station in Orange County in order to rig every election she's run for.

So @dag, if I heard from an anonymous source that @quantumushroom is clearly a racist & moronic meatbag filled to the brim with human feces..

..it's not technically breaking the AD HOM rule since it's only hearsay, right?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.

Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.



Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

Actually, he stated that the Bush figure was also over the same length of time: "how many did George Bush, I wonder, propose in the same time period in his first term?"

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

What the heck does spending tax money have to do with this?

Obama is utterly disregarding the Constitution? I'd assume you loved Reagan. Show me one thing Obama did that violates the Constitution more than the Iran-Contra Affair under Reagan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).

Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.

Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.



I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Was the Kenyawaiian's golf game disturbed by the sound of a Gibson guitar? That's all the excuse these lawless eco-thugs need these days.


To paraphrase Judge Dredd, "They are ... the law".

Seriously though, good woods for quality guitars are becoming increasingly rare and valuable so this is no light matter. The good resonating woods come from old-growth forests in high altitudes and as such are ripe for exploitation in developing nations. However, as this is likely to be done on the blackmarket in these nations they are just as likely to be harvested in an unsustainable way thereby cutting future guitar making off at the knees. So proper regulation would make sense unless you are the type that thinks "Oh, Indian tigers are almost endangered now. I'd better go get me one before they become extinct".

Was the Kenyawaiian's golf game disturbed by the sound of a Gibson guitar? That's all the excuse these lawless eco-thugs need these days.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

All of the world religions will come together to worship the antichrist. There will be a one world government, a one world economy and a one world religion. The antichrist will have the power to do signs and wonders, and all of the world will be deceived by them and follow him.

Revelation 13:8

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Meaning, if you have decided to reject Jesus before the tribulation, you will be convinced of the deception and by no means be saved. People who had not yet rejected the Lord will still have a chance to be saved. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will end up in hell.


>> ^luxury_pie:
So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

This is a great thing and I support cleaning up your city absolutely. I disagree with simply "Lawless Brats" though. There's more to this story that as you mention, isn't being reported by the news.