Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 10 Nov 2014 5:08 pm » wrote: Ya notice you cannot refute me, dimwit?

All you had to do was name ONE CAPITALIST NATION that doesn't redistribute the wealth and have a welfare state attached. BOOM! I would have been proved wrong.

Instead, you said that stupid **** - waaaagh! Up is down! I'm getting confused! Waaaagh!

Straighten yourself out and square yourself away, dimwit. Your confusion is YOUR problem.

I notice you're a complete and utter waste of time.


Babble away, psycho.

NeoConvict » 07 Apr 2014 10:21 am » wrote:
As an ecig business owner for the past three years and one who has been a customer of the industry is its amazing to see just how much power that big tobacco has. After the first generation e-cigs were shown to help smokers quit at rates three or four times better than any drug, patch available on the market. This created an unholy union arrayed against the fledgling, predominately mom and pop, ecig cottage industry. The FDA tried to ban ecigs as drug delievery devices, while big tobacco tried to convince people that switching from their cancer sticks to inhaling radiator fluid was stupid idea. They spent millions on a disinformation campaign. Big pharma is also a player trying, with the FDA, to label ecigarettes as drug delivery devices and subject them to huge taxes and required them complete millions of dollars worth of blind and double blind tests to prove effectiveness.

This is not the way capatilizm is supposed to work. A superior product, a better mouse trap, is being attacked and buried by the lethal tobacco industry and government agencies allegedly functioning in the publics best interest. Now that ecigs are here to stay big tobbaco have entered into the market place with inferior hardware. They have purchased some of the more experienced small juice production businesses. Their next move is "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". They are moving to ban online sales, ensuring that gas stations and wall mart are the places people can buy their inferior product. A product I believe is delibrately designed to provide a inferior experience to lower the conversion rate of smokers to vapers.

I enjoyed your post and agreed with almost every word. I only have one question of you - and I ask it in all seriousness, as this is a very serious issue. Those letters in red...

Who told you that? Do you remember?

I have discovered that most human beings have a sort of narrative which runs in their heads as "reality," and this narrative is very powerful and very subtle, because it is usually articulated FROM, rather than articulated. That is, the narrative is considered "how things are" by it's owner, and because it is rarely articulated or considered to NEED defending or inspection for validity, it's owner is often never exposed to counter argument and never sees any reason to question the narrative. On the rare occasion when someone says something counter to the narrative, it's easy to dismiss that person as a fruitcake - off his rocker.

This ordinary condition affects almost every human being, and creates filters through which they intake all information - unknowingly. Think of it as putting on a pair of blue-blockers. At first, everything you see is quite "off." But after an hour, you forget you're wearing the things. You're seeing things "the way they are," completely unaware of the profoundly distorting filters that you first put on and then forgot. When you take the glasses off, the world is extremely different than you believed it to be just a moment before - radically different. That is the subtle power of filters.

I will ask you again: Who told you that? Where did you get that information? I can give you MOUNTAINS of evidence against the words in red. MOUNTAINS. And even mere common sense dictates that a consciousless organism designed for the sole purpose of maximizing profits and minimizing liabilities cannot possibly be expected to create a culture which constrains it to the definition implied by those red words. YOUR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCE puts the lie to that utterance, and yet you feel compelled to insist - on no evidence whatsoever - that your personal observations are anomalous.I could LITERALLY call you as a witness against your own belief system, and get you to swear to facts which put that narrative into serious question. And why? It is because you have never stopped tape and demanded answers regarding the default narrative running in the background - the unexamined assumptions which are - like the world you saw through the blue-blockers - "just the way things are."

I invite you to consider - just for one moment - that the words in red are ****. What would change in your world? What effect would that new narrative have on your life? Pain? Gain? Would your personal experiences suddenly be less confusing, make more sense, seem more real? I cannot imagine that they would not. After all, walking through life convinced that your own personal observations are invalid except in a limited and anomalous context hardly leads to an integrated and satisfying narrative - a world view with which one is comfortable.

Let me ask you again: What evidence do you have FOR that statement, or for the homily which followed, expressing the narrative about capitalism which almost every American shares? Narratives are not true based on popularity, but on defensibility, demonstrability. If those red words are as true as you hold them to be, you ought to be able to present SOME evidence in their favor, right off the top of your head. And I mean PROOFS, not dictums. You ought to be able to show a capitalist company - that is, a publicly traded/funded enterprise which is run by a hireling, as opposed to a private ship captained by the actual risk taker (free enterprise) - which succeeds by adhering to your narrative.

Can you do that? Can you give any evidence at all as to how capitalism is "supposed" to work? Where is it written? Who said it? When did it work that way? What companies employed the simple strategy of SERVING markets rather than dominating therm, dividing them up within an established oligarchy, and protecting the oligarchy's exclusive access to those markets by the government gun, under color of law? Because I can give mountains of irrefutable evidence of the creature's design. And the actual design of capitalism is nothing like the descriptors which follow the letters in red. The common and routine behaviors of Wall Street corporations are not anomalies. They're norms.

And that distinction right there? It's a pretty important distinction, if it's true. And if it's false, you ought to be able to take a poke at it without losing the hand you poked it with. It's a big old claim - and it should be easy to call **** on it, using evidence from the real world as opposed to dictums from abstract theory or cultural bromides and homilies.

so,... a question..... how will big tobacco turn a profit when they have no buyers?

the anti smoking cabal are trying to end the smoking habit for everyone. (personally I don't care, never smoked and ever since my uncle quit growing it I have no dog in that hunt)

socially centered » 02 Dec 2014 12:41 pm » wrote:so,... a question..... how will big tobacco turn a profit when they have no buyers?

the anti smoking cabal are trying to end the smoking habit for everyone. (personally I don't care, never smoked and ever since my uncle quit growing it I have no dog in that hunt)

Big Tobacco lost its clout when Al Gore found religion..

How will the SCHIP program be funded when there are no more smokers?

On February 4, 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 was signed into law, which raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes on April 1, 2009 from $0.39 per pack to $1.01 per pack. [8][9] The purpose of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is to provide aid for impoverished children. SCHIP expanded its coverage of liability (in 2009) to include families with up to three times the federal poverty level as well as children from high-income families in New York and New Jersey. SCHIP is proposed to also cover dental benefits and treatment of mental illnesses where it previously did not exist. In addition to providing these services for U.S. citizens, SCHIP is also expanded to cover immigrant children and immigrant pregnant women.[10]

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

GeorgeWashington » 02 Dec 2014 12:46 pm » wrote:
Big Tobacco lost its clout when Al Gore found religion..

How will the SCHIP program be funded when there are no more smokers?

On February 4, 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 was signed into law, which raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes on April 1, 2009 from $0.39 per pack to $1.01 per pack. [8][9] The purpose of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is to provide aid for impoverished children. SCHIP expanded its coverage of liability (in 2009) to include families with up to three times the federal poverty level as well as children from high-income families in New York and New Jersey. SCHIP is proposed to also cover dental benefits and treatment of mental illnesses where it previously did not exist. In addition to providing these services for U.S. citizens, SCHIP is also expanded to cover immigrant children and immigrant pregnant women.[10]

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

you got me there, how will it be funded? usually no federal program ever goes away so I suspect it will find a way.

Clearly, we need MORE government intervention to protect us from large corporations.

Str8tEdge » 02 Dec 2014 4:44 pm » wrote:Clearly, we need MORE government intervention to protect us from large corporations.

Clearly corporations would NEVER lie or cheat or steal or put human lives at risk.

the phony FREE MARKET god even says so.

Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2014 11:09 pm » wrote:Again and again on this board, I have pointed out that capitalism - not "crony" capitalism, not red or green or blue capitalism, but CAPITALISM - lives by the government gun. From soup to nuts, from inception to forever, all Wall Street firms count on the government to socialize risks, privatize profits, and bully cornered markets.
Of late, RJ Reynolds and other of Lush Rimjob's friends have been getting walloped by FREE ENTERPRISE. But capitalism doesn't take that laying down - they use their exclusive control on the mainstream media to tell lies upon lies about their competition, and they go to their bought-and-paid-for government goons to use the nanny state to protect their market.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/fda-pushing ... ids-274796


The canard about 215 calls to the CDC regarding vaping fluid is being repeated all over the corporate media. All 215 calls traced back to RJ Reynolds. And I can prove that - or at least, you should assume that I can, rather than assume the number is accurate, representative and honest, given the billions at stake for big tobacco.

You mean that they are using the liberal/progressive methods?? WOW!! I did not know that!!! What a revelation!!!!

Str8tEdge » 02 Dec 2014 4:44 pm » wrote:Clearly, we need MORE government intervention to protect us from large corporations.

THAT horse ran off years ago. Clearly, you're living in the past, princess.

Endoscopy » 03 Dec 2014 12:38 am » wrote: You mean that they are using the liberal/progressive methods?? WOW!! I did not know that!!! What a revelation!!!!

You are very special. You aggressively strive to ascend the heights of a special kind of stupidity. What you are kid, is painfully stupid. It strikes pain to my easily elusive Holy Ghost. I'm not just talking part of my heart…. I am talking ALL MY HEART, feels the tremor of sustained pain when I see what goes on in that head of yours.

Take LittleLeague 12 for example, he is humorously stupid. The more you laugh, the stupider he gets. If you really want to step up the ladder of evolution, consider opting for humorously stupid as your next milestone.

greatnpowerfuloz » 03 Dec 2014 1:57 am » wrote: THAT horse ran off years ago. Clearly, you're living in the past, princess.

Clearly it was a sarcastic comment. The ONLY way to control government is to elect reputable representation...... That would be someone who ISN'T picked by your corporate masters.

Brattle Street » 02 Dec 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: Clearly corporations would NEVER lie or cheat or steal or put human lives at risk.

the phony FREE MARKET god even says so.

Blah blah blah....

We wouldn't know about a free market because the government is too busy protecting their corporate masters. Under a REAL free market system, the first time a drug manufacturer killed someone with their product they'd be sued out of business and possible criminal charges for negligence. So what happens now with all the government protection set up dopey?

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 2:31 am » wrote: Blah blah blah....

We wouldn't know about a free market because the government is too busy protecting their corporate masters. Under a REAL free market system, the first time a drug manufacturer killed someone with their product they'd be sued out of business and possible criminal charges for negligence. So what happens now with all the government protection set up dopey?

It is a shame that the space jump you went through, from Bushyism to Liebadardian, didn't come with a manual. If it did, they probably would have covered the part about not revealing your statist positions so incessantly and blatantly.

Brattle Street » 03 Dec 2014 2:41 am » wrote: It is a shame that the space jump you went through, from Bushyism to Liebadardian, didn't come with a manual. If it did, they probably would have covered the part about not revealing your statist positions so incessantly and blatantly.

Well then, perhaps your ******* can actually provide the evidence that my post was statist to begin with, retard? I won't hold my breath like the rest of your empty claims that go unanswered and unproven.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 2:44 am » wrote: Well then, perhaps your ******* can actually provide the evidence that my post< for some reason, he feels compelled to claim that i was addressing some one single post, even though he should comprehend that no such qualification was offered. Stupid or dishonest? You decide.)) was statist to begin with, retard? I won't hold my breath like the rest of your empty claims that go unanswered and unproven.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 2:31 am » wrote:
Blah blah blah... nder a REAL free market system, the first time a drug manufacturer killed someone with their product they'd be sued out of business bla bla blaD

You base that claim on what argument? What about unregulated capitalism would make tort juries more plaintiff friendly? Just SAYING it and two dollars gets you coffee at starbucks - not good coffee, but at least it's expensive so the rubes feel like it's quality.

And what do you mean by a REAL "free market system?" All of our exchanges came into existence through legislation. Right there, the "real" free market went buh bye.There can be no REAL free market system which involves a regulated exchange. The two are mutually exclusive.

I don't believe you have a single argument in favor of the claim that deregulating Wall Street would make juries more generous to plaintiffs. I think it just seemed like a good bluff to run. And the idea that judges would sit on their thumbs while big pharma is bankrupted is laughably naive. It takes a single gavel strike - just one - to cut an out-sized jury award in half. Indeed, that same gavel strike can quarter the award - or throw it out altogether. Civil court judges have enormous discretion, and so long as they exercise that discretion in the favor of the monied class, they are in little danger of being overturned.

I don't remember having seen any evidence that you hold ANY well-formed, defensible, principle-based positions on any topic this board has ever discussed. It seems you just toss out claims the way a crooked barkeep tallies a drunk customer's tab:: If it goes, it goes.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 2:44 am » wrote: I won't hold my breath like the rest of your empty claims that go unanswered and unproven.

I know exactly how you feel. You just claimed that deregulating Wall Street would make juries more sympathetic to plaintiff's in tort cases involving deaths caused by their products.

Seeing this was a preposterous claim on its face and UTTERLY unsupported by either evidence or argumentation, I immediately axed you to back that **** up.

But you won't. You won't even try - because you can't, and you know it. It was just filler rhetoric. And the idea that you're comfortable tossing out grandiose claims as filler rhetoric speaks volumes, son. You've been called too many times for you to think that **** was likely to fly. So we're left to conclude that you neither feel any shame in being caught in preposterous bluffs, nor have any compunction about becoming known for a dishonest nature.

So, yeah. What you said. Like the rest of your empty claims, it will go unargued, unsupported, unproven. It was just another of your whoppers.

Brattle Street » 03 Dec 2014 2:49 am » wrote:

OK... so prove your ridiculous claim. I'm patient.

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 3:58 am » wrote: You base that claim on what argument? What about unregulated capitalism would make tort juries more plaintiff friendly? Just SAYING it and two dollars gets you coffee at starbucks - not good coffee, but at least it's expensive so the rubes feel like it's quality.

And what do you mean by a REAL "free market system?" All of our exchanges came into existence through legislation. Right there, the "real" free market went buh bye.There can be no REAL free market system which involves a regulated exchange. The two are mutually exclusive.

I don't believe you have a single argument in favor of the claim that deregulating Wall Street would make juries more generous to plaintiffs. I think it just seemed like a good bluff to run. And the idea that judges would sit on their thumbs while big pharma is bankrupted is laughably naive. It takes a single gavel strike - just one - to cut an out-sized jury award in half. Indeed, that same gavel strike can quarter the award - or throw it out altogether. Civil court judges have enormous discretion, and so long as they exercise that discretion in the favor of the monied class, they are in little danger of being overturned.

I don't remember having seen any evidence that you hold ANY well-formed, defensible, principle-based positions on any topic this board has ever discussed. It seems you just toss out claims the way a crooked barkeep tallies a drunk customer's tab:: If it goes, it goes.

^^^ What an idiot.... He hasn't figured out how the government protects corporations and businesses....

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 4:08 am » wrote: I know exactly how you feel. You just claimed that deregulating Wall Street would make juries more sympathetic to plaintiff's in tort cases involving deaths caused by their products.

Seeing this was a preposterous claim on its face and UTTERLY unsupported by either evidence or argumentation, I immediately axed you to back that **** up.

But you won't. You won't even try - because you can't, and you know it. It was just filler rhetoric. And the idea that you're comfortable tossing out grandiose claims as filler rhetoric speaks volumes, son. You've been called too many times for you to think that **** was likely to fly. So we're left to conclude that you neither feel any shame in being caught in preposterous bluffs, nor have any compunction about becoming known for a dishonest nature.

So, yeah. What you said. Like the rest of your empty claims, it will go unargued, unsupported, unproven. It was just another of your whoppers.

He still doesn't get it. He thinks it has something to do with juries.....