PDA

View Full Version : Economics Entrepreneurs should have more say in our elections.


googlegoogle
05-27-2009, 07:21 PM
Why not let their vote count more than an average joe's vote?

Entrepreneurs create jobs. They are the engine of our country. It would encourage more people to start a business.

Think of the people that just vote to get more money from people that do work and are entrepreneurs.

The founding fathers once limited voting to people that owned land and had stake in the country.

Now look at who votes in our slanted rigged system - people who use the election process to hope they can get more funds/subsidies/entitlement programs.(all just $$$ kickbacks)

Why should the Ceo of GM's vote equal that of a person who is just voting for buck$.

LOL at those who think that wouldn't be fair. Our systems unfair now.

**edit. Don't forget millionaires and billionaires who subsidize our government and whose tax money also which funds our overspending government. They too should be in the group that should have a few more votes counted.

Cannibal
05-27-2009, 07:24 PM
God I knew you were stupid... but wow.

banyon
05-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Do you think "entrepreneurs" spend all those lobbying dollars for fun?

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 07:41 PM
Now look at who votes in our slanted rigged system - people who use the election process to hope they can get more funds/subsidies/entitlement programs.(all just $$$ kickbacks)

You mean like the CEOs of industries that get funds/subsidies/entitlement programs right?

People can vote for whatever reason they want. That is our system and we stand by it for good or bad.

If you have a problem with voting for economic benefit, then I can only conclude you dislike those who vote for someone who promises to lower taxes simply.

KC Dan
05-27-2009, 08:35 PM
God I knew you were stupid... but wow.
This

Brock
05-27-2009, 08:36 PM
:drool:

Mr. Kotter
05-27-2009, 08:37 PM
Because our Constitution establishes a republic--a representative democracy.

No one has ever agreed to or authorized a Plutocracy. We'd need another revolution for that. Good luck with that anytime soon.

BucEyedPea
05-27-2009, 09:08 PM
You mean like the CEOs of industries that get funds/subsidies/entitlement programs right?
Well what about poor people who get funds and entitlements...as well as middle class folks?


If you have a problem with voting for economic benefit, then I can only conclude you dislike those who vote for someone who promises to lower taxes simply.

Voting for economic benefit or protecting one's personal property aka hard earned money from unreasonable search and seizure due to witholding and without due process to redistribute to others?

Taco John
05-27-2009, 09:11 PM
No one has ever agreed to or authorized a Plutocracy.


The hell they haven't. What we've determined in the last six months is that liberals of all shapes and sizes believe that there is such a thing as "too big to fail." We've authorized, established, and FUNDED a plutocracy.

banyon
05-27-2009, 09:20 PM
The hell they haven't. What we've determined in the last six months is that liberals of all shapes and sizes believe that there is such a thing as "too big to fail." We've authorized, established, and FUNDED a plutocracy.

That was the chorus of Wall Street and market pundits, not really just (or even primarily) liberals, nor was it the view of anyone who would describe themselves as a progressive.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 09:26 PM
Well what about poor people who get funds and entitlements...as well as middle class folks?

They should also have just one vote per person.

Voting for economic benefit or protecting one's personal property aka hard earned money from unreasonable search and seizure due to witholding and without due process to redistribute to others?

I don't know what exactly you are asking or questioning me here.

Taco John
05-27-2009, 09:30 PM
That was the chorus of Wall Street and market pundits, not really just (or even primarily) liberals, nor was it the view of anyone who would describe themselves as a progressive.



I said "liberals of all shapes and sizes." This includes the ones that exist on Wall Street and leech the system to their own benefit (which is the only reason to leech a system).

It's not fiscal conservativism that bails out and nationalizes industries. Quit fooling yourself.

KC Jones
05-27-2009, 09:31 PM
If you stabbed yourself in the face, it might just be the smartest thing you ever did.

banyon
05-27-2009, 09:35 PM
I said "liberals of all shapes and sizes." This includes the ones that exist on Wall Street and leech the system to their own benefit (which is the only reason to leech a system).

It's not fiscal conservativism that bails out and nationalizes industries. Quit fooling yourself.

I see now that you were using your idiosyncratic terminology that includes 90+% of the voting public as "liberals" and doesn't have any usefulness to anyone besides you and BucEyedPea.

Taco John
05-27-2009, 09:38 PM
I see you're using your feelings to define things, instead of using what things actually are as the determinate.

Taco John
05-27-2009, 09:40 PM
If you stabbed yourself in the face, it might just be the smartest thing you ever did.

Change I can believe in!

banyon
05-27-2009, 09:46 PM
I see you're using your feelings to define things, instead of using what things actually are as the determinate.

Not really, no. Ordinary common use of the term would not include all of Wall Street and a ton of Republicans as "liberals". It's a pretty objective observation.

Mr. Kotter
05-27-2009, 10:15 PM
The hell they haven't. What we've determined in the last six months is that liberals of all shapes and sizes believe that there is such a thing as "too big to fail." We've authorized, established, and FUNDED a plutocracy.

Nah. We haven't yet. Though in the end, you could be right.

Authorizations like this would come as the result of a complete change in the political climate of the country, over 3-4 election cycles (before it would really constitute a wholesale change.) Right now, folks are just frustrated; when people are frustrated, they look for change. Change has to stick, over an extended period of time....for there to be a substantial and real change though. It'll take 10-15 years to get to that point.

BucEyedPea
05-27-2009, 10:40 PM
They should also have just one vote per person.
You post seemed, to me, to be like entrepreneurs and businessmen should bet some goodies from the govt to vote for.



I don't know what exactly you are asking or questioning me here.

I'll bet you didn't. You don't have the same awareness that I have.

penchief
05-27-2009, 10:48 PM
I said "liberals of all shapes and sizes." This includes the ones that exist on Wall Street and leech the system to their own benefit (which is the only reason to leech a system).

It's not fiscal conservativism that bails out and nationalizes industries. Quit fooling yourself.

Good God, why is it that you think one can't be a fiscal conservative and a liberal? That has got to be one of the biggest misconceptions that people on this board like to perpetuate. It's almost as bad as when BEP claims that righties cannot be big spenders. Right and left have nothing to do with the size of government or leeching off the system.

Republicans are traditionally in the pockets of big business and work together with the corporate quo to undermine representative government. Corporate Welfare programs and the military industrial complex are very good examples of righties as big spenders leeching off the system.

I am a fiscal conservative and a liberal. The political term, liberal, has more to do with it's root meaning, liberty. To be a liberal means to advocate for the expansion of individual liberties and freedoms. For example, it is liberal to advocate for civil rights. Gay marriage would fall into that category. Traditional conservatism has been more interested in preserving the status quo, and therefore, resistant to those type of changes. Thus the political meaning of the word, conservative.

Yes, to be fiscally conservative means to be more fiscally cautious. And even though hardline fiscal conservatives will resist spending programs that may be liberal in their ideals, it is not the spending that makes them liberal. It is their intent (for example, programs that promote equal opportunity or equal access).

The hypocricy is that the right is no better than the left when it comes to spending or leeching off the system. The only difference is that the left wants to expand opportunity and access while the right wants to consolidate wealth and power.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 10:59 PM
yourself: kill it

Taco John
05-28-2009, 12:43 AM
Not really, no. Ordinary common use of the term would not include all of Wall Street and a ton of Republicans as "liberals". It's a pretty objective observation.


What the **** do I care about "ordinary common use of the term" if the ordinary common use of the term is wrong?
What am I? A ****ing sheep who just grazes where the masses lead me? I call things what they are, not what politics have warped them into. My political compass is set by philosophy, not my mood of the moment.

I used the terms correctly. It isn't the philosophy of conservativism of ANY type that got us bailouts. If that fact doesn't allow you to check your Democrat/Republican boxes neatly, **** off, it's not my problem.

SBK
05-28-2009, 12:59 AM
There are a few things I would like to see instituted when it comes to the vote.

1. You must fill your ballot out correctly. If you fail at this, you failed at voting.
2. You should be able to read your ballot in English.
3. There should be 1 day for voting. Voting is a pain, big deal, other people would literally kill someone to be able to vote.
4. You should pay taxes to vote. If you're a leech, you shouldn't be able to decide how to spend someone else's money. If you're paying into the system, you should have a say.
5. You must prove you are able to vote. Prove you're a citizen, prove you are who you say you are, and prove you have the right to vote. Show ID.

Pipe dream, yes, won't ever happen, but I wouldn't object.

wild1
05-28-2009, 01:13 AM
we do need more input in the political process from producers rather than consumers. certainly you would get more successful government if only people who were successful in life were running it. that is the greatest strength and weakness of democracy, is that it allows access to all who wish for it.

instead seek out more from college and high school students, the poor and the homeless, on and on. which I guess is why we got a president who looks good on TV but has never run a hot dog stand.

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 02:29 AM
What the **** do I care about "ordinary common use of the term" if the ordinary common use of the term is wrong?
What am I? A ****ing sheep who just grazes where the masses lead me? I call things what they are, not what politics have warped them into. My political compass is set by philosophy, not my mood of the moment.

I used the terms correctly. It isn't the philosophy of conservativism of ANY type that got us bailouts. If that fact doesn't allow you to check your Democrat/Republican boxes neatly, **** off, it's not my problem.

You're a liberal.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 02:30 AM
Just stop.

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 02:37 AM
we do need more input in the political process from producers rather than consumers. certainly you would get more successful government if only people who were successful in life were running it. that is the greatest strength and weakness of democracy, is that it allows access to all who wish for it.

instead seek out more from college and high school students, the poor and the homeless, on and on. which I guess is why we got a president who looks good on TV but has never run a hot dog stand.

The political parties are backed by hundreds of millionaires. They control the media, the entertainment, the manufacturing, the financial sector, increasingly the universities, and the political parties. They run interest groups and think tanks. High school students have no say. College students (the small percent that actually vote) pick from a handful of people already deemed worthy by the parties to be viable, the same as everyone else. The poor have almost no say, and many do not vote unless they are actively recruited. Your concern that the homeless and young are taking the country away can not be taken seriously.

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 02:43 AM
Taco John is a liberal. I define anyone a liberal who adheres closely to Lockian ideas as a liberal. The rest of you c***suckers can piss off! I AM NOT A ****ING SHEEP AND I WILL NOT LET "DICTIONARIES", THE FORMALIZING OF COMMON UNDERSTANDING TO HOLD ME DOWN. I AM A REBEL AND I WEAR MY CHE SHIRT PROUDLY. DICTIONARIES AND LANGUAGE ARE BOURGEOSIE TOOLS TO KEEP DOWN THE MASSES FROM ACHIEVEING TRUE FREEDOM. You are either a Lockian liberal or a Machievallian Civic Republican. I am right, everyone else is wrong and this is how I go on power trips!! Finally an outlet that allows me to voice my opinion with authority! God Bless the Internet.

penchief
05-28-2009, 06:12 AM
What the **** do I care about "ordinary common use of the term" if the ordinary common use of the term is wrong?
What am I? A ****ing sheep who just grazes where the masses lead me? I call things what they are, not what politics have warped them into. My political compass is set by philosophy, not my mood of the moment.

I used the terms correctly. It isn't the philosophy of conservativism of ANY type that got us bailouts. If that fact doesn't allow you to check your Democrat/Republican boxes neatly, **** off, it's not my problem.

Bailouts aren't liberal either. The problem for your claim is that it was people who identify themselves as conservatives and righties that clamor for less government and less regulation who have raped the system. Your notion that liberals are running Wall Street is simply ridiculous.

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 06:39 AM
Do you think "entrepreneurs" spend all those lobbying dollars for fun?
no kidding. They already have more than just one vote power.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:47 AM
Taco John is a liberal. I define anyone a liberal who adheres closely to Lockian ideas as a liberal. The rest of you c***suckers can piss off! I AM NOT A ****ING SHEEP AND I WILL NOT LET "DICTIONARIES", THE FORMALIZING OF COMMON UNDERSTANDING TO HOLD ME DOWN. I AM A REBEL AND I WEAR MY CHE SHIRT PROUDLY. DICTIONARIES AND LANGUAGE ARE BOURGEOSIE TOOLS TO KEEP DOWN THE MASSES FROM ACHIEVEING TRUE FREEDOM. You are either a Lockian liberal or a Machievallian Civic Republican. I am right, everyone else is wrong and this is how I go on power trips!! Finally an outlet that allows me to voice my opinion with authority! God Bless the Internet.

Please use adjectives. He's a classical liberal as am I.
I refuse to call Democrats or modern liberals classical liberals or liberals...because they are not. They are illiberal. Please use neo, or modern before the term or leftists, because that's what liberals today are. They advocate destruction, really.

Newspeak continues.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:49 AM
no kidding. They already have more than just one vote power.

No they don't. When it comes down to ballots they only get to vote once.
You can get on the phone and lobby your own reps. You can even start your own lobbying group too. You can do the same as them. It doesn't stop Acorn.
Further we get more of this stuff because we don't follow the Constitution. By that I include respect for property rights.
How can you blame any hard working businessman who took on risks to get to where he is to protect his property from being taken or his business
micro-managed usually with destructive results.
What is wrong, is lack of regard for following the Constitution on both sides of the aisle.

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:22 AM
Please use adjectives. He's a classical liberal as am I.
I refuse to call Democrats or modern liberals classical liberals or liberals...because they are not. They are illiberal. Please use neo, or modern before the term or leftists, because that's what liberals today are. They advocate destruction, really.

Newspeak continues.

Please stop. You and Taco have put all of your eggs in one basket making it impossible for you to see the forest through the trees. You are so intent on defending your ideological purity that you are constantly doing mental gymnastics in order to justify the failure of your ideology by blaming the very people who opposed the ideological basis behind the destructive policies.

I am more of a classical liberal than you will ever be. You are nothing more than an apologist for an ideology that enabled business crooks and war profiteers to undermine the peoples representative government.

Now that the damage is done you sling labels around as if it will disguise the fact that it was the right wing that advocated for those destructive policies and it was the left wing that opposed them. It was the so called conservatives who rode that train till it ran out of track. I didn't get called a communist because I argued in favor of those destructive policies. I was called names because I spoke out against them. As almost all liberals did.

People on the right who like to call themselves conservative are the ones who enabled, supported, and defended the entities that ****ed this country up. And that includes you. People who identify themselves as liberals resisted those policies tooth and nail. We have several years of evidence on this board to prove it.

So please, stop making apologies for your narrow ideology, wipe the crud from your eyes, and take an objective look around before you start blaming others for the shortcomings of your own beliefs. Being conservative should mean being a realist and a pragmatist but for some reason it doesn't. These days being a conservative must mean being a narrow ideolgoue.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 07:23 AM
I edited...I said it didn't stop Acorn. Now shat up!

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 07:25 AM
Please stop. You and Taco have put all of your eggs in one basket making it impossible for you to see the forest through the trees. You are so intent on defending your ideological purity that you are constantly doing mental gymnastics in order to justify the failure of your ideology by blaming the very people who opposed the ideological basis behind the destructive policies.

I am more of a classical liberal than you will ever be. You are nothing more than an apologist for an ideology that enabled business crooks and war profiteers to undermine our representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Now that the damage is done you sling labels around as if it will disguise the fact that it was the right wing that advocated for those destructive policies and it was the left wing that opposed them. It was the so called conservatives who rode that train till it ran out of track. I didn't get called a communist because I argued in favor of those destructive policies. I was accused of treasonous behavior because I spoke out against them. As almost all liberals did.

People on the right who like to call themselves conservative are the ones who enabled, supported, and defended the entities that ****ed this country up. And that includes you. People who identify themselves as liberals resisted those policies tooth and nail. We have several years of evidence on this board to prove it.

So please, stop making apologies for your narrow ideology, wipe the crud from your eyes, and take an objective look around before you start blaming others for the shortcomings of your own beliefs. Being conservative should mean being a realist and a pragmatist but for some reason it doesn't. These days it must mean being a narrow ideolgoue.

people bag on penchief for hyperbole, but a lot of this is true in my opinion.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 07:27 AM
LMAO I didn't even read it. But now that I see his quote....penchief cites me being for war profiteers when I criticize mercantilists, the war and how war wrecks an economy, that this country was monetarized to help pay for that war ( that had a lot of off the budget expenses too) and that monetarization is a big factor in our current financial situation. I even criticized our FP being needed for oil when it really isn't required ( mercantilism) and criticized oil being subsidized ( especially b y the military) as well as Cheney for making money off govt endeavors. I am far more consistent than penchief. penchief can't read.

Oh and penchief, the original true NeoCons have returned to the Democratic party. What do you think Rahm Emmanual is? Bill Kristol gushes over Obama's domestic policies. Kruathammer gushed over him on tv. Let's not forget, that Bush governed to the left of LBJ domestically and with Iraq. Just because some conservatives agreed with Bush on the war, doesn't mean all conservatives did. You need to check out some of the Old Right sites. They were very highly critical of Bush. LMAO

And let's not forget that Clinton, both husband and wife knew Saddam had disarmed too. Rendition was worse under Clinton per former CIA Scheuer. And the Democrats went along with the entire debacle by shirking their responsibilities on question and debating the executive and failing to Declare War. They rubber stamped it all. Then there's the mortgage crisis by FF....which is more the fault of the Ds. Frank, Acorn etc.

A classical liberal believes in Jeffersonian small govt with a humble foreign policy—not an empire of bases around the world or American exceptionalism.

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:34 AM
LMAO I didn't even read it. But now that I see his quote....penchief cites me being for war profiteers when I criticize mercantilists, the war and how war wrecks an economy, that this country was monetarized to help pay for that war ( that had a lot of off the budget expenses too). I even criticized our FP being needed for oil when it really isn't required ( mercantilism) and criticized oil is subsidized as well as Cheney for making money off govt endeavors. I am far more consistent than penchief. penchief can't read.

Maybe you should probably have read it. I criticized you for advocating a narrow ideology that enabled war profiteers and business crooks. Which is true. Even though you rail against mercantilists you are unwilling to make the connection between your narrow economic ideology and the empowerment of those entities (the business crooks and war profiteers).

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 07:39 AM
Ahem! Was there a noise?

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:41 AM
Oh, and Buc. I could give a rat's ass about the history of the neocons and Bill Kristol. It's ancient history. It has no relevance to rank and file liberal vs. conservative. Those guys don't represent anything liberal and they don't represent me. I'll agree that they aren't conservative but they sure as hell fall on the right-wing side of the scale.

Your incessant desire to pigeon-hole anything that doesn't conform with your narrow ideology is really irritating.

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:42 AM
Ahem! Was there a noise?

Of course. You choose to mischaracterize the debate and then ignore it. No wonder you keep repeating the same fallacies over and over again.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 07:45 AM
LMAO

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:46 AM
LMAO

LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 07:51 AM
LMAO

penchief
05-28-2009, 07:54 AM
LMAO

LMAO

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 08:06 AM
If BUC is going to respond to people she has on ignore who have been quoted, why not just take them off ignore? Seems a little silly.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 08:12 AM
If BUC is going to respond to people she has on ignore who have been quoted, why not just take them off ignore? Seems a little silly.

I don't use ignore like that. I use it in general...even to avoid long arguments with people where I know I won't get out of here on time. I don't mind occasionally responding. I can also tell when someone has posted to me because the new ignore feature shows can give you a clue they have.

Penchief's just waste of time and it's the same old thing he's said to me a hundred times before. It's been argued endlessly with him, including by others. He's not going to change.

It's my choice really...even though I know lefties like to micro-manage other people's choices and actions. Not to mention are pesky interventionists like you're being here.

penchief
05-28-2009, 08:15 AM
I don't use ignore like that. I use it in general...even to avoid long arguments with people where I know I won't get out of here on time. I don't mind occasionally responding. I can also tell when someone has posted to me because the new ignore feature shows can give you a clue they have.

Penchief's just waste of time and it's the same old thing he's said to me a hundred times before. It's been argued endlessly with him, including by others. He's not going to change.

It's my choice really...even though I know lefties like to micro-manage other people's choices and actions. Not to mention are pesky interventionists like you're being here.

Yes, it's your choice to ignore any evidence that contradicts your bogus claims. Which you almost always do.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 08:17 AM
The hell they haven't. What we've determined in the last six months is that liberals of all shapes and sizes believe that there is such a thing as "too big to fail." We've authorized, established, and FUNDED a plutocracy.

By "liberals" I assume you're throwing in everyone who is economically to the left of you, which is just about everyone except for your fellow Miseans, correct?

After all, Bush was also unwilling to allow certain firms to fail on the same too big to fail theory.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 08:17 AM
I said "liberals of all shapes and sizes." This includes the ones that exist on Wall Street and leech the system to their own benefit (which is the only reason to leech a system).

It's not fiscal conservativism that bails out and nationalizes industries. Quit fooling yourself.

Ignore my last as Banyon beat me to the question.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 08:18 AM
I see now that you were using your idiosyncratic terminology that includes 90+% of the voting public as "liberals" and doesn't have any usefulness to anyone besides you and BucEyedPea.

Definitional battles with BEP have a long and sad history here. Much useless typing has been spent on such matters. I see TJ is following in the same footsteps.

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 08:24 AM
Please use adjectives. He's a classical liberal as am I.
I refuse to call Democrats or modern liberals classical liberals or liberals...because they are not. They are illiberal. Please use neo, or modern before the term or leftists, because that's what liberals today are. They advocate destruction, really.

Newspeak continues.

I will not conform to your elitist standards. I am not a sheep. Just because all you people decided to add "classical" to separate yourselves from your other selves does not mean I have to. You are all interested in personal rights and equalities. Therefore, you are all liberal to me. And everyone who disagrees or attempts to explain this away is wrong. I am right. Here me roar.

penchief
05-28-2009, 08:26 AM
A classical liberal believes in Jeffersonian small govt with a humble foreign policy—not an empire of bases around the world or American exceptionalism.

I see that you keep adding to your post after the fact. As if you are trying to sneak something in that won't be responded to. So I'll respond to this new addition.

Where have I or any other liberal on this board ever advocated for an empire around the world? In fact, the opposite is true. We liberals have argued against such a thing. It has been those on the right, many of whom call themselves conservative, who have advocated for what you describe.

Why are you incapable of separating your ideological propaganda from the reality of that which occurs right in front your face?

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 08:26 AM
I will not conform to your elitist standards. I am not a sheep. Just because all you people decided to add "classical" to separate yourselves from your other selves does not mean I have to. You are all interested in personal rights and equalities. Therefore, you are all liberal to me. And everyone who disagrees or attempts to explain this away is wrong. I am right. Here me roar.

I think she eats spicy dijon mustard on her burgers.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 08:29 AM
Please use adjectives. He's a classical liberal as am I.
I refuse to call Democrats or modern liberals classical liberals or liberals...because they are not. They are illiberal. Please use neo, or modern before the term or leftists, because that's what liberals today are. They advocate destruction, really.

Newspeak continues.

It's kind of a joke that you want the rest of the world to conform with your definitional standards when you presumably fully realize that the rest of the world thinks you're the one on the island.

It's as if 99% of Americans call an elbow an elbow, and 1% call it a lemon, and scream that everyone else should call it a lemon too.

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 08:33 AM
Yes, it's your choice to ignore any evidence that contradicts your bogus claims. Which you almost always do.

Wow, irony. Not that Iím disagreeing.

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 08:35 AM
By "liberals" I assume you're throwing in everyone who is economically to the left of you, which is just about everyone except for your fellow Miseans, correct?

After all, Bush was also unwilling to allow certain firms to fail on the same too big to fail theory.

I think most of us agreed that Bush was only as conservative as needed to gain votes. Once the election was over that shit was out the window.

Direckshun
05-28-2009, 08:39 AM
I think my vote should count as 3/5s a normal vote.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 08:41 AM
By "liberals" I assume you're throwing in everyone who is economically to the left of you, which is just about everyone except for your fellow Miseans, correct?

After all, Bush was also unwilling to allow certain firms to fail on the same too big to fail theory.

By liberals, I mean people who advocate for policy measures that are liberal, regardless of which side of the imaginary fence you folks caught up in personality politics thinks exists.

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 08:43 AM
By liberals, I mean people who advocate for policy measures that are liberal, regardless of which side of the imaginary fence you folks caught up in personality politics thinks exists.

Like freedom of speech.

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 09:05 AM
I think my vote should count as 3/5s a normal vote.

Agreed. I also think mine should count as 22/7 a normal vote because thatís just how awesome I am.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 09:33 AM
You're a liberal.


In many ways, I am. I don't put the same negative values on the term liberalism that some of you folks seem to.

A question: why do so many liberals run from the term "liberal" like it was the plague? Why can't people just own up to what they are?

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 09:44 AM
In many ways, I am. I don't put the same negative values on the term liberalism that some of you folks seem to.

A question: why do so many liberals run from the term "liberal" like it was the plague? Why can't people just own up to what they are?

They should stand proudly for what their ideas represent and defend staunchly. It's called no integrity when they don't. Besides it's the left, as written in a treatise by Orwell, that corrupts language to change the country.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 09:45 AM
I think my vote should count as 3/5s a normal vote.

I'd be fine on that, as well as for the rest of the lefties in this country since they advocate slavery to the state.:clap:

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 09:45 AM
I think she eats spicy dijon mustard on her burgers.

Nope I hate it. French's mustard for me. But only on an organic hot dog and whole grain bun. ( spelt or millet for me).
Apple pie too and ballgames. Football first.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:02 AM
I don't use ignore like that. I use it in general...even to avoid long arguments with people where I know I won't get out of here on time. I don't mind occasionally responding. I can also tell when someone has posted to me because the new ignore feature shows can give you a clue they have.

Penchief's just waste of time and it's the same old thing he's said to me a hundred times before. It's been argued endlessly with him, including by others. He's not going to change.

It's my choice really...even though I know lefties like to micro-manage other people's choices and actions. Not to mention are pesky interventionists like you're being here.

it's childish.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:04 AM
In many ways, I am. I don't put the same negative values on the term liberalism that some of you folks seem to.

A question: why do so many liberals run from the term "liberal" like it was the plague? Why can't people just own up to what they are?

Are you a fascist? If not, why do you run from the term of what you are?

What circular reasoning.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 10:13 AM
Are you a fascist? If not, why do you run from the term of what you are?

What circular reasoning.


You would have a real point if words meant nothing, and philosophies didn't exist. Unfortunately for your attempt at a point here, these things exist no matter how much you try to ignore tham, and how you (or people in general) apply them (whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously).

Words mean things, friends.

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 10:18 AM
But only on an organic hot dog and whole grain bun. ( spelt or millet for me).


How very elitist of you.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:20 AM
You would have a real point if words meant nothing, and philosophies didn't exist. Unfortunately for your attempt at a point here, these things exist no matter how much you try to ignore tham, and how you (or people in general) apply them (whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously).

Words mean things, friends.

"Words mean things [and only how I want to define them]"

Yeah, way to address the point there. Actually, the point was perfectly clear if you were honest about it.

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't have anyone on ignore. If I don't feel like getting into a long argument where I know I'll be banging my head against a reinforced concrete wall, I just don't respond to the topic at all.

JohnnyV13
05-28-2009, 10:23 AM
Are you a fascist? If not, why do you run from the term of what you are?

What circular reasoning.

Banyon, what are you thinking? When have logical fallacies ever applied to a CP argument? Its more important to hurl a good insult.

penchief
05-28-2009, 10:27 AM
I think most of us agreed that Bush was only as conservative as needed to gain votes. Once the election was over that shit was out the window.

He sure as hell wasn't a liberal as some want to claim.

penchief
05-28-2009, 10:29 AM
By liberals, I mean people who advocate for policy measures that are liberal, regardless of which side of the imaginary fence you folks caught up in personality politics thinks exists.

Then which Wall Street liberals were you referring to who advocated for less regulation so that they could leech off the system? Which liberal measures were they advocating for? Equal access? Equal opportunity? Health Care? Education? Since when did deregulation and corporate welfare become liberal policies?

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 10:30 AM
I think most of us agreed that Bush was only as conservative as needed to gain votes. Once the election was over that shit was out the window.

Well, he sure as hell wasn't liberal. Maybe he didn't fit the standard definition of conservative, but Democrats reviled him, so there's no way he was in our camp...

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 10:32 AM
In many ways, I am. I don't put the same negative values on the term liberalism that some of you folks seem to.

A question: why do so many liberals run from the term "liberal" like it was the plague? Why can't people just own up to what they are?

Most do it because the Republicans made it a point to turn the word "liberal" into a four letter word in American political jargon.

I've never run from the label, and in fact had under my avatar for my first year or two on this form the simple statement "A liberal".

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 10:34 AM
They should stand proudly for what their ideas represent and defend staunchly. It's called no integrity when they don't. Besides it's the left, as written in a treatise by Orwell, that corrupts language to change the country.

Your left or our left?

This is the problem when you don't use terms in commonly understood ways. Nobody knows WTF you're talking about, and that's not exactly helpful on a chat board.... :rolleyes:

If you mean OUR left, then I definitely disagree since it was Republicans that managed to make "liberal" into a swear word that stands for UnAmerican Communistic Left Wing Nut Job, more or less.

And well done on their part. One good way to win a debate is to frame the argument against your opponent and put them on the defensive.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 10:35 AM
I'd be fine on that, as well as for the rest of the lefties in this country since they advocate slavery to the state.:clap:

Whereas you support the slavery set forth in the Constitution, in some respects. I guess we all have our faults.

penchief
05-28-2009, 10:38 AM
In many ways, I am. I don't put the same negative values on the term liberalism that some of you folks seem to.

A question: why do so many liberals run from the term "liberal" like it was the plague? Why can't people just own up to what they are?

I don't run from it. But I think people do because they don't get a fair shake. Some prefer the term progressive because of the intentional mischarterization of its meaning. The status quo has successfully tried to paint liberal to mean something far different than what it does. BEP is a classic example of someone who thinks that liberal means something that it doesn't.

Amnorix
05-28-2009, 10:38 AM
You would have a real point if words meant nothing, and philosophies didn't exist. Unfortunately for your attempt at a point here, these things exist no matter how much you try to ignore tham, and how you (or people in general) apply them (whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously).

Words mean things, friends.

Yes, but they don't always mean the same things over time. You and BEP have frozen definitions into what you think they would have meant when used in about 1777.

It's comical and confusing, to be honest. You pick a random point in time and freeze everything as of then. Such words as "liberal" and conservative would have meant something far different in 1500 as they did in 1777, just as the lapse of time from then to now has further changed their meaning.

Welcome to English, an evolving language.

penchief
05-28-2009, 10:47 AM
They should stand proudly for what their ideas represent and defend staunchly. It's called no integrity when they don't. Besides it's the left, as written in a treatise by Orwell, that corrupts language to change the country.

Yeah, and because the right twisted the language with double-speak terms like "Clear Skies Initiative" and "Healthy Forest Initiative" that makes those policies liberal policies and the policy-makers liberals because of something you read.

Wow. You can't extract yourself from your indoctrination long enough to evaluate the real world impact of a policy to determine whether it serves a liberal cause or a conservative cause. You just want to blame everything on "the liberals."

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 10:52 AM
Well, he sure as hell wasn't liberal. Maybe he didn't fit the standard definition of conservative, but Democrats reviled him, so there's no way he was in our camp...

Not all Democrats are Liberal, not all Republicans are Conservative. Surely you know politics isn’t a light switch, it isn’t made up of absolutes.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 10:52 AM
"Words mean things [and only how I want to define them]"

Yeah, way to address the point there. Actually, the point was perfectly clear if you were honest about it.


I was honest about it. Where did you find deceit?

Taco John
05-28-2009, 11:21 AM
Hmmm... maybe my definition is off when it comes to this bailout thing.

Tell me. Is it liberals or conservatives who generally advocate for government solutions to problems? If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty well accepted, even in the mainstream, that it is liberals who generally advocate for government solutions to any given problem.

Is this incorrect?

banyon
05-28-2009, 11:43 AM
I was honest about it. Where did you find deceit?

Well, basically you ignored my post and made some irrelevant comment about how words mean things. Like i said, if you wanted to argue honestly, the point was perfectly clear to anyone, as Johnnyv13's post noted. But since you weren't interested in that, or anything besides your little labelling game, you decided to circumvent the post.

banyon
05-28-2009, 11:45 AM
Hmmm... maybe my definition is off when it comes to this bailout thing.

Tell me. Is it liberals or conservatives who generally advocate for government solutions to problems? If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty well accepted, even in the mainstream, that it is liberals who generally advocate for government solutions to any given problem.

Is this incorrect?

Tell me, which did I support?

Cannibal
05-28-2009, 12:03 PM
Hmmm... maybe my definition is off when it comes to this bailout thing.

Tell me. Is it liberals or conservatives who generally advocate for government solutions to problems? If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty well accepted, even in the mainstream, that it is liberals who generally advocate for government solutions to any given problem.

Is this incorrect?

I guess this means that almost the entire government is liberal then. Considering the bailouts started under the Bush administration and many Republicans voted for them.

Adept Havelock
05-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Why not let their vote count more than an average joe's vote?

Entrepreneurs create jobs. They are the engine of our country. It would encourage more people to start a business.

Think of the people that just vote to get more money from people that do work and are entrepreneurs.

The founding fathers once limited voting to people that owned land and had stake in the country.

Now look at who votes in our slanted rigged system - people who use the election process to hope they can get more funds/subsidies/entitlement programs.(all just $$$ kickbacks)

Why should the Ceo of GM's vote equal that of a person who is just voting for buck$.

LOL at those who think that wouldn't be fair. Our systems unfair now.

Wow. I haven't read a post that moronic since recxjake and A1N1 stopped posting.

Definitional battles with BEP have a long and sad history here. Much useless typing has been spent on such matters. I see TJ is following in the same footsteps.

:p

googlegoogle
05-28-2009, 01:20 PM
Wow. I haven't read a post that moronic since recxjake and A1N1 stopped posting.



:p

How is it stupid when they are the engine of this country?

We do not have a democracy and we do not allow the public to vote on each issue in politics or economics.

We elect representatives. Should we drop our present government and have telephone/computer democracy? Goodluck.

Business people/entrepreneurs are representative of our economy.

It's just a thought.

googlegoogle
05-28-2009, 01:29 PM
I think my vote should count as 3/5s a normal vote.

If you suck on everyone else's tit by living off the government and always demanding subsidies and gov handouts.

Yes, it's logical.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 01:34 PM
Tell me, which did I support?

Why should this be about you? Just because some liberals didn't support this intervention doesn't mean that the intervention was any less based in what is modernly liberal.

When are you going to learn that personality is not what should be the motive power behind political definitions, but instead philosophy?

Taco John
05-28-2009, 01:34 PM
I guess this means that almost the entire government is liberal then. Considering the bailouts started under the Bush administration and many Republicans voted for them.

I would agree.

Adept Havelock
05-28-2009, 01:58 PM
How is it stupid when they are the engine of this country?

If you can't see why it's ignorant, there is little hope for you. Please remove yourself from the gene pool before you pollute it by reproducing.

Aside from the (IMO) Unconstitutionality of what you propose, perhaps you have no respect for the American Tradition of One Person-One Vote. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of us do as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.



We do not have a democracy and we do not allow the public to vote on each issue in politics or economics.

We elect representatives. Should we drop our present government and have telephone/computer democracy? Goodluck.

Business people/entrepreneurs are representative of our economy.

Sure, if you don't care about "One person/One Vote".

What you propose is a Plutocracy. Good luck with that. Why don't you go and whine about how tragic it is that we have a representative republic which turned it's back on the founding fathers property requirement for voting? If you want to live in a Plutocratic society, I suggest you go find one.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Good luck with that, napoleonnapoleon. :rolleyes:


It's just a thought.

So is "Why don't the Chiefs trade for Johnny Unitas"? Your "thought" has just as much merit.

chris
05-28-2009, 02:15 PM
Why not let their vote count more than an average joe's vote?

Entrepreneurs create jobs. They are the engine of our country. It would encourage more people to start a business.
.

Hey! How many votes do I get as an entrepreneur who is actually hiring people in this recession(depression)???

2, 3, 10? This is better than ACORN padding the ballot box. :)

Gimmie, Gimmie!

It is the silly season! Can't wait for Training Camp- August 1.

banyon
05-28-2009, 02:42 PM
Why should this be about you? Just because some liberals didn't support this intervention doesn't mean that the intervention was any less based in what is modernly liberal.

When are you going to learn that personality is not what should be the motive power behind political definitions, but instead philosophy?

Well, it's obviously relevant because a large segment of who you would call "liberal" did not support the bailouts and a large segment of the people who you did include as "liberals" are not seen by most other people as liberals. It's always going to be a problem with these overly broad labels you guys like to throw around.

jidar
05-28-2009, 02:45 PM
This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on the Internet.

chris
05-28-2009, 03:04 PM
This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on the Internet.

Slightly above the Poop threads! :)

googlegoogle
05-28-2009, 03:22 PM
Hey! How many votes do I get as an entrepreneur who is actually hiring people in this recession(depression)???

2, 3, 10? This is better than ACORN padding the ballot box. :)

Gimmie, Gimmie!

It is the silly season! Can't wait for Training Camp- August 1.

How many jobs do you create? How much money are you sending to the government?

googlegoogle
05-28-2009, 03:23 PM
This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on the Internet.

according to you. which means nothing.

Brock
05-28-2009, 03:36 PM
I'll go along with giving "entrepeneurs" 5 votes apiece, as long as their lobbyists are kicked out of Washington.

VAChief
05-28-2009, 03:39 PM
This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on the Internet.

Other that 9/11 was an inside job?

Taco John
05-28-2009, 04:32 PM
Well, it's obviously relevant because a large segment of who you would call "liberal" did not support the bailouts and a large segment of the people who you did include as "liberals" are not seen by most other people as liberals. It's always going to be a problem with these overly broad labels you guys like to throw around.

How does the fact that even liberals did not support a very liberal measure change the fact of its liberalism? I ask again: is it conservativism or is it liberalism that looks to government for solutions to problems? Just because you don't like a measure doesn't mean that it isn't liberal. It just means that you might have some sense in you afterall.

I'm sorry if these "overly broad" labels hurt your delicate sensibilities. Yes, we're so crazy for anchoring ourselves to philiosophical roots of politics rather than what personalities like Pelosi and Newt Gingrich say about what is left, right, or in between. We just feel so terrible about it.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 04:36 PM
I'll go along with giving "entrepeneurs" 5 votes apiece, as long as their lobbyists are kicked out of Washington.

Reduce the power government weilds and you reduce the number of lobbyists in Washington. The only way to reduce the power government weilds is by reducing budgets and eliminating taxes.

Or, I suppose there is some liberal solution that we could use, like creating a Department of Commercial Liason that would regulate the relationships between congress and business. ROFL

Oh crap - I'm going to get "The Word Liberal" Police in here on me again if I don't watch out.

banyon
05-28-2009, 04:41 PM
How does the fact that even liberals did not support a very liberal measure change the fact of its liberalism? I ask again: is it conservativism or is it liberalism that looks to government for solutions to problems? Just because you don't like a measure doesn't mean that it isn't liberal. It just means that you might have some sense in you afterall.

Well, as I stated earlier, it's not really just me that I was talking about, it's progressives in general were not enamored with this corporate handout. And since you also don't want to see any distinction between progressives and liberals, then you don't get to have it both ways. Either there's a distinction there between the two, or the measure wasn't as "liberal" as you thought it was. "government solutions to problems" is neither a sufficient nor a necessary definition of liberalism as normal people use it. The Iraq War involved a "government solution" but was hardly supported by anyone normal people would call liberal in the least. Conservatives regularly support "government solutions" to moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.,

I'm sorry if these "overly broad" labels hurt your delicate sensibilities. Yes, we're so crazy for anchoring ourselves to philiosophical roots of politics rather than what personalities like Pelosi and Newt Gingrich say about what is left, right, or in between. We just feel so terrible about it.

It doesn't hurt my sensibilities at all, it just makes it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 04:57 PM
And since you also don't want to see any distinction between progressives and liberals, then you don't get to have it both ways.

Finding a distinction between progressives and liberals is as trivial as finding a distinction between Lutherans and Catholics. What's the point? They both favor government solutions to private ones.


Either there's a distinction there between the two, or the measure wasn't as "liberal" as you thought it was. "government solutions to problems" is neither a sufficient nor a necessary definition of liberalism as normal people use it.


"Normal people." Hahaha! I love your arguments. "You're abnormal, therefore I'm right, despite the fact that I'm unequipped to refute what you're saying.

What I said was right, and you can't deny it: Liberals have a tendancy to look to government for solutions. This is a fact. It's born of Hamiltonian liberalism. Whether "normal people" understand the roots of political movements and the things that they advocate means nothing to me. I don't care if the real definitions make you uncomfortable. That's people's own responsibility to come to grips with.


The Iraq War involved a "government solution" but was hardly supported by anyone normal people would call liberal in the least.


No, not by personality politic standards. By personality politic standards, conservatives were in favor of the war, and liberals were against it. But that's such simplistic bullshit that I can hardly believe that you're duped into trying to even shovel it. You're capable of being much more sophisticated than that. But I guess if you want to break politics down to the lincon log level, you're absolutely correct.


Conservatives regularly support "government solutions" to moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.,

...and yet another example of lincoln log politics. Just like I said previously, if someone who calls themselves "a conservative" but advocates the liberal use of government to solve problems, how conservative are they really?


It doesn't hurt my sensibilities at all, it just makes it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.

If only I were "normal people" like you, I might not be in this predicament.

Calcountry
05-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Finding a distinction between progressives and liberals is as trivial as finding a distinction between Lutherans and Catholics. What's the point? They both favor government solutions to private ones.





"Normal people." Hahaha! I love your arguments. "You're abnormal, therefore I'm right, despite the fact that I'm unequipped to refute what you're saying.

What I said was right, and you can't deny it: Liberals have a tendancy to look to government for solutions. This is a fact. It's born of Hamiltonian liberalism. Whether "normal people" understand the roots of political movements and the things that they advocate means nothing to me. I don't care if the real definitions make you uncomfortable. That's people's own responsibility to come to grips with.





No, not by personality politic standards. By personality politic standards, conservatives were in favor of the war, and liberals were against it. But that's such simplistic bullshit that I can hardly believe that you're duped into trying to even shovel it. You're capable of being much more sophisticated than that. But I guess if you want to break politics down to the lincon log level, you're absolutely correct.




...and yet another example of lincoln log politics. Just like I said previously, if someone who calls themselves "a conservative" but advocates the liberal use of government to solve problems, how conservative are they really?




If only I were "normal people" like you, I might not be in this predicament.I think he is as conservative as a log cabin.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:11 PM
Finding a distinction between progressives and liberals is as trivial as finding a distinction between Lutherans and Catholics. What's the point? They both favor government solutions to private ones.

Not understanding the distinction, it's not surprising that you make this incorrect assumption.



"Normal people." Hahaha! I love your arguments. "You're abnormal, therefore I'm right, despite the fact that I'm unequipped to refute what you're saying.

What I said was right, and you can't deny it: Liberals have a tendancy to look to government for solutions. This is a fact. It's born of Hamiltonian liberalism. Whether "normal people" understand the roots of political movements and the things that they advocate means nothing to me. I don't care if the real definitions make you uncomfortable. That's people's own responsibility to come to grips with.

I fully expect you to continue under the delusion that your deviant definitions are somehow "realer" than the definitions that 90+% of the literate public uses.


No, not by personality politic standards. By personality politic standards, conservatives were in favor of the war, and liberals were against it. But that's such simplistic bullshit that I can hardly believe that you're duped into trying to even shovel it. You're capable of being much more sophisticated than that. But I guess if you want to break politics down to the lincon log level, you're absolutely correct.

Well when you insist on oversimplification, it makes replying with any kind of subtle understanding kind of difficult. But these were your definitions I worked with, I see you didn't like the way they were applied, which makes sense because they were too simplistic in the first place.


...and yet another example of lincoln log politics. Just like I said previously, if someone who calls themselves "a conservative" but advocates the liberal use of government to solve problems, how conservative are they really?

Yet another facet of your attempt to distort terminology to fit your maniacal theoretical purity obsession. Conservatives, the way the term is normally understood (and yes, I realize how despite your fringe view you don't want to sound like you're on the fringe and so want me to avoid using that word) have long advocated government intervention in social issues. It is nothing new or debased.


If only I were "normal people" like you, I might not be in this predicament.

Probably broadening your education beyond the ideological vacuum you have chosen would get you out of the predicament faster I would think.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 05:14 PM
I would agree.

Me too. :D

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 05:20 PM
Wow. I haven't read a post that moronic since recxjake and A1N1 stopped posting.



:p

He's ignorant on the subject. He just has a hair across his lefty ass because he doesn't like the real term applied to him.

Most likely you and him haven't studied dictionaries let alone use them, regularly, preferring the popular use of certain terms which isn't necessarily a complete or correct one. Never mind it not being the one that I use. I am literate in this area, more than you or him.

I actually have studied the terms using more than a dictionary but the origin of the worda,their etymological and historical evolution. That means tracing them from older dictionaries even. I prefer to use the original definitions, if only to point out how politics have corrupted certain terms and don't mean what people think they mean. For heavens sake, even Cliff notes explains the difference the way I have on a liberal back then and now. a Orwell, did in fact, write a treatise on this entire topic called Politics and the English Language (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit) I've also quoted a famous socialist who says the liberal movement had to co-opt the term liberal in order to get socialism accepted here.

Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.-The Atlantic (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/politics_and_th.html= )

Ya' know like "enhanced interrogations" things like that

And like this:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."—Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

[PWNED]

Calcountry
05-28-2009, 05:35 PM
I guess this means that almost the entire government is liberal then. Considering the bailouts started under the Bush administration and many Republicans voted for them.The first vote was rejected by nearly all republicans.

It was only after those who are in favor of a "big tent" and felt they had to "do something" caved in, did we get this abortion that has ceded Cogressional authority over the purse to the Treasury department.

mlyonsd
05-28-2009, 05:44 PM
I don't like the way democrats play the class warfare game but giving a person more value for a vote is doing the same thing from the opposite side of the spectrum.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 05:58 PM
There's is a distinction between a progressive and a liberal but they're both still two peas in a pod. It's slight. Both have huge swatchs of socialism in their beliefs. Both are lefties. No doubt.

I would say even the word "progressive" is also a misowner just not across the board more in general.

banyon
05-28-2009, 05:59 PM
There's is a distinction between a progressive and a liberal but they're both still two peas in a pod. It's slight. Both have huge swatchs of socialism in their beliefs. Both are lefties. No doubt.

I would say even the word "progressive" is also a misowner just not across the board more in general.

Does this mean the difference between you and a reactionary or anarchist is to be minimized as well?

orange
05-28-2009, 07:29 PM
I actually have studied the terms using more than a dictionary but the origin of the worda,their etymological and historical evolution. That means tracing them from older dictionaries even. I prefer to use the original definitions, if only to point out how politics have corrupted certain terms and don't mean what people think they mean.


Reality:


Specialty Definition: Dictionary

A dictionary is a list of words with their definitions, a list of characters with its glyph or a list of words with corresponding words in other languages. Many dictionaries also provide pronunciation information, word derivations, histories, or etymologies, illustrations, usage guidance, and examples in sentences.

...


Variations between dictionaries

Prescription and Description

Dictionaries come in two basic philosophies, prescriptive and descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is descriptive, and attempts to describe actual usage. Noah Webster, on the other hand, who was intent on forging a distinct identity for the American language changed the meanings and pronunciation of numerous words.
Most modern dictionaries are descriptive, although many, such as the American Heritage dictionaries make extensive efforts to provide information on the best usage, and almost all dictionaries provide some information on words considered erroneous, vulgar, or easily confused. In any case, in the long run, usage alone determines the meaning of words, although dictionaries provide conservative continuity, even the most descriptive.


BucEyedPea's world described:

DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. Source: Devil's Dictionary.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/dictionary

Adept Havelock
05-28-2009, 08:15 PM
DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. Source: Devil's Dictionary.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/dictionary

The Devil's Dictionary. ROFL I love that book.

Sully
05-28-2009, 08:29 PM
Never mind the sheer stupidity of this idea, let's look at how it would be implemented...


How would we define an entrepreneur?

penchief
05-28-2009, 09:54 PM
He's ignorant on the subject. He just has a hair across his lefty ass because he doesn't like the real term applied to him.

Most likely you and him haven't studied dictionaries let alone use them, regularly, preferring the popular use of certain terms which isn't necessarily a complete or correct one. Never mind it not being the one that I use. I am literate in this area, more than you or him.

I actually have studied the terms using more than a dictionary but the origin of the worda,their etymological and historical evolution. That means tracing them from older dictionaries even. I prefer to use the original definitions, if only to point out how politics have corrupted certain terms and don't mean what people think they mean. For heavens sake, even Cliff notes explains the difference the way I have on a liberal back then and now. a Orwell, did in fact, write a treatise on this entire topic called Politics and the English Language (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit) I've also quoted a famous socialist who says the liberal movement had to co-opt the term liberal in order to get socialism accepted here.

Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.-The Atlantic (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/politics_and_th.html= )

Ya' know like "enhanced interrogations" things like that

And like this:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."—Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

[PWNED]

Just who do you think Adept was replying to in his post? For some reason I think you're a bit confused. Maybe your reading comprehension skills would improve if you weren't so eager to proclaim how much smarter you are than everyone else.

Reading the manner in which you string your second-hand thoughts together makes it sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's like reading a collage of partisan talking points recited from rote memory minus any cogent reasoning. You would do much better to include some real world observation and objective reasoning instead of only relying on self-indoctrinated propaganda.

It would also help if you actually took the time to read the posts you are responding to.

googlegoogle
05-28-2009, 11:01 PM
Never mind the sheer stupidity of this idea, let's look at how it would be implemented...


How would we define an entrepreneur?


Want to see sheer stupidity? Look in the mirror.

VAChief
05-29-2009, 07:01 AM
Want to see sheer stupidity? Look in the mirror.

What works for you may not work for others.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:07 AM
Reality:


Specialty Definition: Dictionary

A dictionary is a list of words with their definitions, a list of characters with its glyph or a list of words with corresponding words in other languages. Many dictionaries also provide pronunciation information, word derivations, histories, or etymologies, illustrations, usage guidance, and examples in sentences.

...


Variations between dictionaries

Prescription and Description

Dictionaries come in two basic philosophies, prescriptive and descriptive. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is descriptive, and attempts to describe actual usage. Noah Webster, on the other hand, who was intent on forging a distinct identity for the American language changed the meanings and pronunciation of numerous words.
Most modern dictionaries are descriptive, although many, such as the American Heritage dictionaries make extensive efforts to provide information on the best usage, and almost all dictionaries provide some information on words considered erroneous, vulgar, or easily confused. In any case, in the long run, usage alone determines the meaning of words, although dictionaries provide conservative continuity, even the most descriptive.


BucEyedPea's world described:

DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. Source: Devil's Dictionary.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/dictionary
'Eh noooo! That's quite incomplete. I know what's missing. Do you?
Have you ever taught reading? And you lack dictionary skills.

You do know a dictionary has multiple entries for words right?
Do you know why that is? There's a reason for it. Lemme know if you figure it out. Because that relates to what you just did in your post.

And a dictionary is sometimes not enough, too. Dinky dictionaries are also inadequate. You can just take an old dictionary and see how differently democracy is defined, and how it changed. You can see how communism and socialism are defined ( similarly) and are accurate but too boiled down to simplicities for people to really grasp their full meaning. Studying the different forms, then going back to that dictionary definition
would make one grasp those definitions.

I see Adept Havelock is contributing his usual besmirchment and ridicule of those he disagrees with....and cannot articulate an argument.
The ad hominem of the left is much worse than those on the right ( Amnorix and Orange join the long parade)

Liberals today do not believe in the same things as the liberals of the early 19th century or earlier. They were for reducing govt controls over an economy etc. Today it's the opposite. Crack a history book.


Orange's Reality— deflect and deny.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:31 AM
The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"), and is associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom


Sorry but excessive controls over property and business, massive intervention in economies to socially engineer outcomes, bailouts, universal healthcare smacks of unequal laws for equal results. Those acts are anti-liberty. That's hardly classical liberalism.

Even wiki, just using it as a starting point has most of it right.( Since I didn't have the time to read it all. The point on "equality" at the beginning needs to say equality under the law. So that it doesn't infer each taking according to their needs. We are not all equal in abilities etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

penchief
05-29-2009, 08:02 AM
'Eh noooo! That's quite incomplete. I know what's missing. Do you?
Have you ever taught reading? And you lack dictionary skills.

You do know a dictionary has multiple entries for words right?
Do you know why that is? There's a reason for it. Lemme know if you figure it out. Because that relates to what you just did in your post.

And a dictionary is sometimes not enough, too. Dinky dictionaries are also inadequate. You can just take an old dictionary and see how differently democracy is defined, and how it changed. You can see how communism and socialism are defined ( similarly) and are accurate but too boiled down to simplicities for people to really grasp their full meaning. Studying the different forms, then going back to that dictionary definition
would make one grasp those definitions.

I see Adept Havelock is contributing his usual besmirchment and ridicule of those he disagrees with....and cannot articulate an argument though.
The ad hominem of the left is much worse than those on the right ( Amnorix and Orange join the long parade)

Liberals today do not believe in the same things as the liberals of the early 19th century or earlier. They were for reducing govt controls over an economy etc. Today it's the opposite. Crack a history book.


Orange's Reality— deflect and deny.

You're so smart you're stupid. Why do you feel you are in a postition to tell anyone how to study? I graduated from college with a 4.0 GPA. The difference between you and me is that you need to brandish your self-proclaimed intellect as a means of feeding your self esteem.

Plus, you think by regurgitating all the propaganda you've fed yourself that you don't have to bother debating evidence that contradicts the "knowledge" that you think makes you smarter than everyone else. You use the words of others as if they were a panacea against common sense. It's the equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "la la la la la!"

Just once I'd like to see you actually respond to a post with reason and logic of your own based on real world observation rather than resort to browbeating others with a mish mash of elitist partisan cut and paste mumbo jumbo.

penchief
05-29-2009, 10:15 AM
The ad hominem of the left is much worse than those on the right ( Amnorix and Orange join the long parade).

If you are referring to being called out about your miseducated arrogance as ad hominem then you apparently weren't around a few years ago when the right was using terms like "Islamic Whore," etc. to describe the people with whom they disagreed.

You're comparing apples to oranges because you don't like being challenged over the nonsense you're trying to peddle.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 10:17 AM
I would like to see that only taxpayers vote in this country. Even if they only pay a penny a year. It'd be symbolic, but it would be nice.

orange
05-29-2009, 10:20 AM
I would like to see that only taxpayers vote in this country. Even if they only pay a penny a year. It'd be symbolic, but it would be nice.

Does anybody not pay sales tax?

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Does anybody not pay sales tax?

Income tax. I should have been more specific. Why should people that do not contribute to the income tax pool vote on representation that decides how that money is spent? Now get rid of Federal Income tax and I don't see the need for it.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 10:40 AM
I'd like to see white males who earn 400k or more per year as the only ones with the right to vote. :rolleyes:

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:14 PM
Because our Constitution establishes a republic--a representative democracy.

No one has ever agreed to or authorized a Plutocracy. We'd need another revolution for that. Good luck with that anytime soon.


It's not control by the wealthy. It's more representation to people that AREN'T being represented in our slanted biased system.

nice spin.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:15 PM
I'd like to see white males who earn 400k or more per year as the only ones with the right to vote. :rolleyes:


No taxation without representation.

Ever hear of that. Business people don't get representation in this country.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:16 PM
I would like to see that only taxpayers vote in this country. Even if they only pay a penny a year. It'd be symbolic, but it would be nice.

And people that receive subsidies from government(leeches) shouldn't have the right to vote.

Our system unfairly favors them.

KC native
05-29-2009, 01:18 PM
No taxation without representation.

Ever hear of that. Business people don't get representation in this country.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL so who pays the lobbyists?

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:19 PM
Does this mean the difference between you and a reactionary or anarchist is to be minimized as well?


Your the king of comebacks aren't you.

You people just hate that SOCIALIST word.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:24 PM
If you can't see why it's ignorant, there is little hope for you. Please remove yourself from the gene pool before you pollute it by reproducing.

Aside from the (IMO) Unconstitutionality of what you propose, perhaps you have no respect for the American Tradition of One Person-One Vote. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of us do as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.



Sure, if you don't care about "One person/One Vote".

What you propose is a Plutocracy. Good luck with that. Why don't you go and whine about how tragic it is that we have a representative republic which turned it's back on the founding fathers property requirement for voting? If you want to live in a Plutocratic society, I suggest you go find one.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Good luck with that, napoleonnapoleon. :rolleyes:



So is "Why don't the Chiefs trade for Johnny Unitas"? Your "thought" has just as much merit.

I love how you bring up constitutionality when we are PAYING OFF people with others monies through our voting system.

Do you think that is alright?

Can we pay people directly to vote a certain way? No.

But it seems to be A-OK to give away subsidies and programs doesn't it.

Maybe you need to fucking wake up.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:27 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL so who pays the lobbyists?

Have the lobbyists removed some of the highest corporate taxes on the planet?

Have they removed all the paperwork to running a business?

Have they removed all the extra stupid taxes in running a business?

and what about stupid lawsuits targeting businesses? Lobbyists haven't stopped that either.

So what if they have lobbyists? Every group has one.

KC native
05-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Have the lobbyists removed some of the highest corporate taxes on the planet?

Have they removed all the paperwork to running a business?

Have they removed all the extra stupid taxes in running a business?

and what about stupid lawsuits targeting businesses? Lobbyists haven't stopped that either.

So what if they have lobbyists? Every group has one.

You are an idiot. Businesses have representation. Just STFU because you know nothing about business.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 01:35 PM
No taxation without representation.

Ever hear of that. Business people don't get representation in this country.

You do realize that people in business have the right to vote don't you? :rolleyes:

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:40 PM
You are an idiot. Businesses have representation. Just STFU because you know nothing about business.

And what do you know?

I am talking about the producers in this country be given more say than worthless leeches who just crossed the border illegally.

Quit telling me i don't know business. You don't know me. :shake:

You can STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU

KC native
05-29-2009, 01:42 PM
And what do you know?

I am talking about the producers in this country be given more say than worthless leeches who just crossed the border illegally.

Quit telling me i don't know business. You don't know me. :shake:

You can STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU

ROFL So is never never land nice this time of year?

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 01:49 PM
ROFL So is never never land nice this time of year?

Couldn't come up with something better? :shake:

Are you a socialist? Hmmm.

orange
05-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Couldn't come up with something better? :shake:

Are you a socialist? Hmmm.

When someone is as thoroughly committed to spewing nonsensical drivel as you are, trying to argue rationally with them is pointless.

I'm surprised anyone is even trying. "Business people don't get representation in this country" would have done for me.

banyon
05-29-2009, 03:40 PM
Your the king of comebacks aren't you.

You people just hate that SOCIALIST word.

I don't have any animosity toward the word, it just doesn't apply unless you're painting with a really broad brush.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 04:33 PM
When someone is as thoroughly committed to spewing nonsensical drivel as you are, trying to argue rationally with them is pointless.

I'm surprised anyone is even trying. "Business people don't get representation in this country" would have done for me.

It's very logical and sensible.

You don't like it so therefore you attack it.

If it was good enough for the FOUNDING FATHERS,who you probably also call nonsensical then it's good enough for me.

banyon
05-29-2009, 04:47 PM
It's very logical and sensible.

You don't like it so therefore you attack it.

If it was good enough for the FOUNDING FATHERS,who you probably also call nonsensical then it's good enough for me.

So, you're a big slave trader, huh?

Sully
05-29-2009, 04:47 PM
Couldn't come up with something better? :shake:

Are you a socialist? Hmmm.

it's sure no "look in the mirror." thanks for setting the standard for high quality comebacks.
ROFL

kstater
05-29-2009, 04:53 PM
No taxation without representation.

Ever hear of that. Business people don't get representation in this country.

Which amendment outlaws "business people" from voting?

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 05:52 PM
Which amendment outlaws "business people" from voting?

How about diminishing hard working business owners and entrepreneurs influence by voters like - the lazy and entitlement class who vote themselves money,projects and more entitlements.

Like I said. People who receive any funding from their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Conflict of interest. Just keeps voting for more and more money. A Death spiral.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 06:12 PM
How about diminishing hard working business owners and entrepreneurs influence by voters like - the lazy and entitlement class who vote themselves money,projects and more entitlements.

Like I said. People who receive any funding from their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Conflict of interest. Just keeps voting for more and more money. A Death spiral.

Ever heard of people with legitimate disability? There are millions of them. You don't think they should have a voice in government, or have a choice in who might represent their interests?

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 06:26 PM
Ever heard of people with legitimate disability? There are millions of them. You don't think they should have a voice in government, or have a choice in who might represent their interests?

Disabled,people with mental disease and the elderly should not be in charge of our budgets.

The outcome is huge deficits and always blame at others for not paying enough to them.

kstater
05-29-2009, 06:34 PM
Disabled,people with mental disease and the elderly should not be in charge of our budgets.

The outcome is huge deficits and always blame at others for not paying enough to them.

So you're saying you shouldn't get to vote?

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 06:47 PM
Disabled,people with mental disease and the elderly should not be in charge of our budgets.

The outcome is huge deficits and always blame at others for not paying enough to them.

There are millions of completely mentally stable people with permanent disabilities, apparently, you want to take away their right to representation. LOL, you even want to take away the right to vote from the elderly who may be perfectly aware and cognizant? Holy Jesus.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 06:47 PM
So you're saying you shouldn't get to vote?

ROFL Excellent.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 06:57 PM
There are millions of completely mentally stable people with permanent disabilities, apparently, you want to take away their right to representation. LOL, you even want to take away the right to vote from the elderly who may be perfectly aware and cognizant? Holy Jesus.

Calling me a f-uck-ing retard? huh. I care about deficits and abuse of the government. You obviously could give a shit.

Why don't you come over to my house and say it to my face you monkey.

While your over here you can try and rob me too.

I got a 12 guage surprise for you. Right up your asshole. :D

banyon
05-29-2009, 06:58 PM
You missed the point. They are voting themselves money. Do you think they would ever voluntarily take less. They will only want more and more until someone stops them.

Voters voting themselves funds should be illegal. Probably is.

Who is it that you think is not voting in their perceived economic self interest?

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 07:01 PM
You missed the point. They are voting themselves money. Do you think they would ever voluntarily take less. They will only want more and more until someone stops them.

Voters voting themselves funds should be illegal. Probably is.

I suggest you call your Representatives and request to have the U.S. Constitution amended so that only the people that you want to vote can vote.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 07:02 PM
Calling me a f-uck-ing retard? huh. I care about deficits and abuse of the government. You obviously could give a shit.

Why don't you come over to my house and say it to my face you monkey.

While your over here you can try and rob me too.

I got a 12 guage surprise for you. Right up your asshole. :D

I believe you quoted the wrong person. My reply had absolutely nothing to do with anything you typed in that response.

kstater
05-29-2009, 07:05 PM
Who is it that you think is not voting in their perceived economic self interest?

You mean everyone that votes has the option of voting for a candidate that most closely resembles what they want? What a novel concept.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 07:07 PM
He just neg repped me and told me to "DIE ****". I thought I was being civil in this thread.

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 07:08 PM
Wait, maybe I did call him a retard. Yeah I did earlier when I neg repped him. LOL

kstater
05-29-2009, 07:08 PM
Calling me a f-uck-ing retard? huh. I care about deficits and abuse of the government. You obviously could give a shit.

Why don't you come over to my house and say it to my face you monkey.

While your over here you can try and rob me too.

I got a 12 guage surprise for you. Right up your asshole. :D

I believe you were directing this at me. Yes, your idea that certain people should have their vote count more than other people IS retarded. This country tried that once, it wasn't a good idea then either.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 07:14 PM
I suggest you call your Representatives and request to have the U.S. Constitution amended so that only the people that you want to vote can vote.

No you're right. Giving every Mexican who jumps the fence the right to vote and every person dependent on Uncle Sam more power has worked out 'great'.

Once a long time ago only a select few could vote and they voted in the interest of the USA.

googlegoogle
05-29-2009, 07:19 PM
I believe you were directing this at me. Yes, your idea that certain people should have their vote count more than other people IS retarded. This country tried that once, it wasn't a good idea then either.

And how is it working out now that everyone that crosses the U.S. border demands health care money. How is it working out that the elderly are asking for more and more when they never paid that money into the system?

And I know that business people and entrepreneurs are never going to get more than one vote per person.

I am just having a little fun but also trying to illustrate the problem of democracy and voter voting for more entitlements.

kstater
05-29-2009, 07:22 PM
No you're right. Giving every Mexican who jumps the fence the right to vote and every person dependent on Uncle Sam more power has worked out 'great'.

Once a long time ago only a select few could vote and they voted in the interest of the USA.

I'm fairly confidant that illegal aliens don't have the right to vote. And if you think about it, these "business people" that you want to give extra votes to hire these illegal aliens. It truly is a vicious cylcle for "business people".

kstater
05-29-2009, 07:25 PM
And how is it working out now that everyone that crosses the U.S. border demands health care money. How is it working out that the elderly are asking for more and more when they never paid that money into the system?

And I know that business people and entrepreneurs are never going to get more than one vote per person.

I am just having a little fun but also trying to illustrate the problem of democracy and voter voting for more entitlements.

So "elderly people" are asking for more money per person? They didn't pay into SS as they worked?

Cannibal
05-29-2009, 07:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe one of these types of goverments would be more to google's liking. Particulary the third option.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 08:06 PM
So "elderly people" are asking for more money per person? They didn't pay into SS as they worked?

They have. Let's face it though, they're getting more out of it than they put in or it'd barely buy them crumbs. Not that they could live on it.

kstater
05-29-2009, 08:08 PM
They have. Let's face it though, they're getting more out of it than they put in or it'd barely buy them crumbs. Not that they could live on it.

Hush, I want to hear what Giggleoggle has to say. And let's face it, if(if) some sort of solvency program is worked out, we'll benefit more than we put in as well.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 08:13 PM
Hush, I want to hear what Giggleoggle has to say. And let's face it, if(if) some sort of solvency program is worked out, we'll benefit more than we put in as well.

I doubt it. Our govt is bankrupt. I plan on getting nothing. I'd rather be safer than sorry. I buried some gold coins somewhere, just in case.

kstater
05-29-2009, 08:15 PM
I doubt it. Our govt is bankrupt. I plan on getting nothing. I'd rather be safer than sorry. I buried some gold coins somewhere, just in case.

Oh I don't believe it WILL be solvent, I said IF we can find a way, we'd benefit more than we put in.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 08:16 PM
Oh I don't believe it WILL be solvent, I said IF we can find a way, we'd benefit more than we put in.

Oh, my bad!

googlegoogle
05-30-2009, 12:44 AM
So "elderly people" are asking for more money per person? They didn't pay into SS as they worked?


You didn't know that entitlements are killing us?

You didn't know that the Medicare & Medicaid users never put in the amount of money into the system that they're using now.

This is comical.

You should remake your avatar into Phil Hartman playing Clinton and saying "hey Mississippi, we're gaining on you".

Cannibal
05-30-2009, 12:49 AM
You didn't know that entitlements are killing us?

You didn't know that the Medicare & Medicaid users never put in the amount of money into the system that they're using now.

This is comical.

Which form of government do you favor in post # 163? You've advocated forms of all three many times in this thread. I just want to know which is your favorite.

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 02:04 PM
Hey, entrepenuers having more of a vote sounds like a good idea to me. I'm an equity holder in an early stage company. And, my thoughts are worth about 10 times the rest of you Morans.

I mean the ignorent masses are so dum, they can't even speel correktly, much less think. The genious of entrepenuers like meself will save this country.

We're also altruists. Just like the Prezidents of Countrywide and AIG.

|Zach|
05-30-2009, 02:10 PM
Hey, entrepenuers having more of a vote sounds like a good idea to me. I'm an equity holder in an early stage company. And, my thoughts are worth about 10 times the rest of you Morans.

I mean the ignorent masses are so dum, they can't even speel correktly, much less think. The genious of entrepenuers like meself will save this country.

We're also altruists. Just like the Prezidents of Countrywide and AIG.

So the company hasn't done anything yet.

Earthling
05-30-2009, 03:11 PM
About the only thing dumber than this post is the attempt to defend it. Lol

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 03:15 PM
So the company hasn't done anything yet.

Zach, we're an early stage electronic health records company. We have a really good business model, and an exceptional application designer (who is the founder. The founder was the lead designer for Bank of America's ATM system in the 80's, BofA's collection system, and solved a number of basic design problems with early web-based java applications for Sun Microsystems. Pretty much every web-based java application today uses our founder's design solution.)

We have developed the product, we are making profits, and have thoroughly tested our product with our silicon valley beta group.

Obama, of course, has entirely changed the landscape of our business in the last 3 months. Generally, we think his changes will actually benefit small competitiors. How they actually play out, though, is anyone's guess.

We hope to capture a significant portion of a very large emerging market (only about 8% of hospitals and 17% of physician offices have a complete EHR system). Its a significant challenge because we have numerous competitors. Cerner is probably the biggest EHR provider right now(6000 clients including the EHR contract for England), NextGen is (I believe) still the only state certified EHR system in CA (we're working on it. We just produced a 2nd generation system), and big blue chip corporations have recently gotten into the game like Wall-Mart (who bought eClinical Works) and GE (who, as far as I know, developed their own in-house product).

We have come a long way, but have even farther to go.

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 03:33 PM
About the only thing dumber than this post is the attempt to defend it. Lol

Dude, it was sarcasm. I was making fun of the premise.

Earthling
05-30-2009, 03:37 PM
Dude, it was sarcasm. I was making fun of the premise.

Lol JohnnyV13..I was't thinking of your post at all. Sorry if ya thought that. :D

penchief
05-30-2009, 04:14 PM
Dude, it was sarcasm. I was making fun of the premise.

I think he meant the entire thread. Which I would have to agree if that is the case.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2009, 04:19 PM
Do you think "entrepreneurs" spend all those lobbying dollars for fun?

You think many startup family businesses have a budget for lobbying?

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 04:30 PM
You think many startup family businesses have a budget for lobbying?

This. That's for mature businesses. As far as I know, even ventures backed by big equity financing firms rarely have a lobbying budget.

I suppose if there were some key regulatory or leglislative roadblock, and if you had an equity finance company connected to some big blue chip or heavy hitter billionare, it might happen.

banyon
05-30-2009, 04:54 PM
You think many startup family businesses have a budget for lobbying?

His proposal wasn't limited to people just starting to a business.

orange
05-30-2009, 04:59 PM
This. That's for mature businesses. As far as I know, even ventures backed by big equity financing firms rarely have a lobbying budget.

I suppose if there were some key regulatory or leglislative roadblock, and if you had an equity finance company connected to some big blue chip or heavy hitter billionare, it might happen.

What about Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, trade organizations, etc.? Doesn't group lobbying count? The right certainly believes that group lobbying by unions matters.

Jenson71
05-30-2009, 05:52 PM
You think many startup family businesses have a budget for lobbying?

Corporate lobbyists don't care about startup family businesses. They want to crush them. Their boss is hoping to gut your family business or else buy you out as cheap as possible. The lobbyist will do everything to see that this happens.

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 08:06 PM
What about Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, trade organizations, etc.? Doesn't group lobbying count? The right certainly believes that group lobbying by unions matters.

I guess they do. I really wasn't thinking about small businesses in established markets. I'm so focused on how my company is thinking, that I really wasn't thinking outside that mindset.

Maybe you can consider "establishing good relationships" with state and local regulatory groups a form of "lobbying". But that's a long, long way off from weilding legislative/regulatory influence.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 09:00 PM
Zach, we're an early stage electronic health records company. We have a really good business model, and an exceptional application designer (who is the founder. The founder was the lead designer for Bank of America's ATM system in the 80's, BofA's collection system, and solved a number of basic design problems with early web-based java applications for Sun Microsystems. Pretty much every web-based java application today uses our founder's design solution.)

We have developed the product, we are making profits, and have thoroughly tested our product with our silicon valley beta group.

Obama, of course, has entirely changed the landscape of our business in the last 3 months. Generally, we think his changes will actually benefit small competitiors. How they actually play out, though, is anyone's guess.

We hope to capture a significant portion of a very large emerging market (only about 8% of hospitals and 17% of physician offices have a complete EHR system). Its a significant challenge because we have numerous competitors. Cerner is probably the biggest EHR provider right now(6000 clients including the EHR contract for England), NextGen is (I believe) still the only state certified EHR system in CA (we're working on it. We just produced a 2nd generation system), and big blue chip corporations have recently gotten into the game like Wall-Mart (who bought eClinical Works) and GE (who, as far as I know, developed their own in-house product).

We have come a long way, but have even farther to go.

Heh! I work for a similar firm. I'll bet our product is better n' yours. :D

JohnnyV13
05-30-2009, 09:19 PM
Heh! I work for a similar firm. I'll bet our product is better n' yours. :D

That's exactly what we're doing Buck. Betting. In the great big poker game in the sky.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 11:18 PM
That's exactly what we're doing Buck. Betting. In the great big poker game in the sky.

Oh, we're not betting. They've been around for 20 years. We've had some of our highest ever sales in the past month. They keep pushing me to work full-time. Yuck!
However, they do more than just electronic health care filing ( entire healthcare practice management digitally including digital documentation). I'm developing their new logos right now.

JohnnyV13
05-31-2009, 03:58 AM
Oh, we're not betting. They've been around for 20 years. We've had some of our highest ever sales in the past month. They keep pushing me to work full-time. Yuck!
However, they do more than just electronic health care filing ( entire healthcare practice management digitally including digital documentation). I'm developing their new logos right now.

Yeah, we're a "complete" solution, too. Its just that saying we're an EHR company is a bit easier in casual conversation given that its EHR that's the current political topic.