On Mar 31, 2:19 pm, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
> The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > <Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>news:0a05c064-bd3f-4225-a0d4-3fc4eade6572@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > I just chuckle when the roof caves in, and suddenly the alleged
capitalis
> ts
> > >> > cry out for taxpayer funded assistance.
>
> > >> > It's the old rule of privatization. Government sells asset to
private
> > >> > interests, private interests **** up said asset, private
interests go
> > >> > running
> > >> > to the tax payer for a bail out or financial assistance to keep
asset
> > >> > viable
> > >> > or just dump and run.
>
> > >> > The Libertarian way.
>
> > >> *rolls eyes*
>
> > >> No, not the libertarian way (notice lack of capitalisation), since
> > >> libertarians generally shy away from anything government. Try the
> > >> "cor****ate-capitalist" way, since those who buy up large government
> > >> sell-offs of whatever, are usually the capital-heavy cor****ations
who
> > >> can afford them in the first place, and those who get bailed out by
the
> > >> government due to ****ups by either the companies themselves or the
> > >> government are usually ... drumroll... the... politically
well-connected
> > >> ... cor****ations.
>
> > > and that is why libertarianism is simply the road to fascism.
>
> Imbecile.
>
then show me how libertarianism will control the powerful and the
wealthy. there is three times more money in circulation in america
today, but far fewer regulators. its hands off, laissez-faire.
name calling is all you have. that menas you have nothing.
> > > regulations are a firewall between the wealthy and powerful,
>
> The imbecile does not understand that the wealthy and powerful are
> exactly that because of government, not despite it.
>
we have always had the wealthy and the powerful. but the period from
1933-to the early 1970's proved their power could be contained to
minimal damage. in a libertarian utopia there would be no wealthy and
powerful people? please explain.
> > and the
> > > corruption in government, remove the fiewall, and the liberated
> > > cor****ations will use their new found access to distort,
>
> The imbecile does not understand that cor****atehood could not exist
> without government granted privileges.
>
true, in somalia the words used for cor****ations is, "WARLORDS".
please explain to me how a libertarian utopia would impede the rise of
warlords and cor****ations.
> > or create
> > > laissez-faire, as in the case of the mortgage debacle,
>
> The imbecile does not understand that the subprime crisis has happened
> as a result of state favoritism towards its cor****ate symbionts and dues
> to government-permitted private usurpation of the monetary system.
>
ah, some understanding, of course you are completely befuddled as to
why i say this. government had a hands off, or lassiez-faire attitude
to business, that is why we have what we have today. in your
libertarian utopia government would intervene in the markets to insure
this would not happen? please explain to the great unwashed, this
should be good.
> > and
> > > securitizations. no government involment there. it was all private
> > > sector.
>
> You are truly imbecilic.
>
>
and when did government tell wall street to do this, or, did wall
street do this on its own? please explain.
>
> > It is called "payolla government". And is fixed/prevented like this:
> >http://Greatervoice.org/extend
>
> Trucker, we all have our pet rocks, but I'd like to see (and I do not
> mean this in the rhetorical sense) if you can provide any do***entation
> for a correlation of the decling of governmental accountability and
> individual freedoms since the number of citizens per representatives
> increased.
>
> Also, how well would a 10,000 man Congress function?
>
> --
> regards , Peter B. P.http://macplanet.dk
> Wa****ngton D.C.: District of Criminals
>
> "I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
|
