I <3 Corporate Greed

hmm, its interesting also, your tactics are the tactics of "free market" dudes over here.

basically say "you argument is shit, blablabla, your argument is shit" (mostly insults and trying to belittle the "opponent"

which is a bit of a joke, judge them by their actions, not their words (is a great lesson btw ;))
Please see previous responses to other posters. Just because you didn't like one response to one of your post, doesn't mean you can magically reduce all of my arguments to nothing. I'll respond constructively if you control your powerful sense of metaphor.
 

sso

Well-Known Member
what i was saying, was that the "concept" "greed is good" ,

didnt work.

the cake being a metaphor for the necessities of life and party a metaphor for life.

the fat kid being the 1% and the rest of the partygoers the 99%

what about the fat kid eating all the cake dont you understand?

it means 1% of people are eating the other 99% out of existence.

is that a good thing? sure , evolution, if it worked that way, the 1% are not, actually, stronger ;)
 

sso

Well-Known Member
Please see previous responses to other posters. Just because you didn't like one response to one of your post, doesn't mean you can magically reduce all of my arguments to nothing. I'll respond constructively if you control your powerful sense of metaphor.
oh fine :) call my words incoherent nonsense if you will, mostly demonstrating your own lack of intelligence ;) i´ll ignore it and grant the rest of your responses the respect they deserve :)
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
I laughed so hard when I read that! They most certainly do not!
What do you call the income tax and the draft? Or the radiation in the air from the radios tv's and cell phones? Or the smoke from the factories and power plants? Or the radium they injected into pregnant women to see what it would do to them? Or the people labotimised and sterilized? Or the people who got medications with HIV in them?
 
what i was saying, was that the "concept" "greed is good" ,

didnt work.

META: Yes, and I disagree. Greed is good, but it must be controlled with legislation. Greed is fire, it must be controlled. It is a powerful tool to drive the economy, but it is dangerous if left unchecked. We just failed to check it. Would you outlaw fire because youve gotten burned?

the cake being a metaphor for the necessities of life and party a metaphor for life.

the fat kid being the 1% and the rest of the partygoers the 99%

what about the fat kid eating all the cake dont you understand?
I liked your metaphor, but it became too complicated to make total sense.

it means 1% of people are eating the other 99% out of existence.

is that a good thing? sure , evolution, if it worked that way, the 1% are not, actually, stronger ;)
I have an issue with poverty, I dont have an issue with wealth. Wealth does not cause poverty, a broken system causes poverty. There can be wealth without poverty, but only if we learn to solve certain long standing social, and legislative issues.
 
What do you call the income tax and the draft? I call them them the income tax and the draft. They are government actions, not corporate ones. The original comment i responded to was about corporations.

Or the radiation in the air from the radios tv's and cell phones? Talk to me when you've proved a cause and effect relationship between cell phones and cancer. Until then, I will continue to believe that cancer causes cell phones.

Or the smoke from the factories and power plants? Pollution. Pollution that needs to be regulated effectively. What do you call exhaust from your car?

Or the radium they injected into pregnant women to see what it would do to them? Who is they?

Or the people labotimised and sterilized? Mistakes made by overzealous psychiatrists.

Or the people who got medications with HIV in them? an Accident, not intentional Corporate plots.
My comments are the ones in bold.
 

Johnny Retro

Well-Known Member
We live in a country where someone who grew up in poverty can make something of themselves, I, personally, have no sympathy. I believe 99% of people who complain about such things don't actually try to better their life. They sit back, complain, and hope someone (our government) will come sweep them up and give them a bunch of money.

Herman Cain, grew up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bluff_(Atlanta) Do me a favor and read that first paragraph. He grew up in a project. His mom worked as a cleaning lady, his dad, a janitor. Now he is the front runner of the GOP. If ANYONE has the right to bitch about things, it was him. I haven't heard him peep a damn word about it.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by beardo
What do you call the income tax and the draft? I call them them the income tax and the draft. They are government actions, not corporate ones. The original comment i responded to was about corporations.
A-. http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/the-united-states-a-corporation/

Or the radiation in the air from the radios tv's and cell phones? Talk to me when you've proved a cause and effect relationship between cell phones and cancer. Until then, I will continue to believe that cancer causes cell phones.

Or the smoke from the factories and power plants? Pollution. Pollution that needs to be regulated effectively. What do you call exhaust from your car?
A-, I don't drive- And i'm arguing thet if I did, that the exhause and other hazards produced through the manufacturing and use of the car would be in effect an individual conspiring with a corperation to force toxins on unwilling people.

Or the radium they injected into pregnant women to see what it would do to them? Who is they?
A-. http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/5/plutonium_files_how_the_u_s

Or the people labotimised and sterilized? Mistakes made by overzealous psychiatrists.
A-
See also: Eugenics in the United States

A poster from a 1921 eugenics conference displays the U.S. states that had implemented sterilization legislation by then


The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[24] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. It was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women[25] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). Some sterilizations took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative[citation needed] minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.[26]
The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[27] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[28]
Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example). Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled.[29] There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.[30]
After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983,[31] with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[32] The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible.[33] In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon[31] and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases.
The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.[34]

Or the people who got medications with HIV in them? an Accident, not intentional Corporate plots.



A-
Here's a little-known truth about Bayer that needs to be revisited. In 2006, it was discovered that Bayer found out a vaccine it was selling in the United States was accidentally contaminated with HIV.




In order to cover its tracks, say the journalists in this video (below), Bayer pulled the vaccines off the market and sold them to consumers in Japan, France, Spain and other countries, where hemophiliacs were then contaminated with HIV due to the vaccine.






 

sso

Well-Known Member
META: Yes, and I disagree. Greed is good, but it must be controlled with legislation. Greed is fire, it must be controlled. It is a powerful tool to drive the economy, but it is dangerous if left unchecked. We just failed to check it. Would you outlaw fire because youve gotten burned?

hmm, greed is "taking more than what you can consume"

its a horrible tool to drive the economy, why? because what really drives the world and all the great inventions and thoughts, is INTEREST (that combined with obsession)
interest to create something

to make something new, to make something better, to make a better life.

you think edison invented the bulb because he was greedy? (well i give you greed for more light lol perhaps,) but no..
he did it because of his allconsuming desire to improve things, to invent, to learn, to make, to create.

similar to musicians, the greatest LOVE music, they dont do it for greed for pussy (thats the lackluster merely ok musicians)

what drives the world today, is not greed for better things (acceptable, but barely, whats wrong with everyone having enough? greed only leads to some having alot and others nothing) ,its not that that drives the world,but greed for power and money..

and thats not a good thing.


I liked your metaphor, but it became too complicated to make total sense.
well, perhaps i went slightly overboard in humor :) and was bit long worded.
I have an issue with poverty, I dont have an issue with wealth. Wealth does not cause poverty, a broken system causes poverty. There can be wealth without poverty, but only if we learn to solve certain long standing social, and legislative issues.
possibly..

food for everyone (And good shit too) and housing for everyone, schools for everyone..

but,, im kinda more fond of the startrek idea, society without money..

im not entirely sure im liking the idea of fighting for everything because of some greedy fools out there that try to take everything in the name of "greed is good"

id rather love it if humankind would work together..

imagine 2 great minds working together,instead of fighting to prove who´s better?

now imagine a billion great minds coming together for a common goal ;)
 
I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, however it has come to my attention that I no longer care. I am sick and do not feel like arguing anymore. Therefore, I officially stop arguing. Starting.......... NOW.
 
Top