Did You Build That?

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby HooDat » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:33 am

a fan wrote:The heyday that fake American conservatives always wish we could go back to---the 1950's---saw the heaviest hand we've ever had as a government. Taxes were triple where they are now. And 7 million young men were on the govt. dole---the GI Bill.

come afan - you are smarter than this. You are blinded by your focus on pointing out the hypocrisy of the R's. The reason the 1950's were the heyday of US exceptionalism is very simple supply and demand thing - the world had just killed about a quarter of the working-age population and had just finished literally blowing up the vast majority of the planet's manufacturing capacity in every developed country except for the USA. Of course we had prosperity - we were the home to every possible job in the world other than digging out the rubble of Europe and Japan (that was of course fueled by US production). There were gov't handouts, but that is not the reason why the US in particular prospered.

a fan wrote:Reagan is the biggest hypocrite of them all. Farm Bill. He's the guy who started the Farm Bill.

yep and that was my point.

a fan wrote:I tout them because I know most of the conservatives at the Water Cooler attended State schools. It's an easy target because I know that you loved them. Hyper inflation arrived when we started guaranteeing $100K+ loans to 18 year olds with no collateral. Get rid of that program, and tuition will plummet.

again, I know you are smarter than this. It goes deeper. The loan guarantees are a key part of the socialist aspect of government support of college educations. It is the government involvement that caused the inflation. But with colleges, the students have choices - which at least means that with all that excess spending the students are getting something for it. Although the majority of increased spending is going to two places (1) fancier buildings and (2) the bureaucracy that is required to serve the government's demands (eg Title IX)

a fan wrote:they have to educate everyone. Colleges don't have to do that. They only have to educate the select few...a far easier task.

which is why we need charter schools of some kind or another - create choice, pay schools that deal with troubled kids more (and that my friend is of course socialism - and a perfect example of where it is appropriate, those who need more, should get more....)

runrussellrun wrote:So they just wouldn't do anymore research for the DOD if Federal dollars dried up.

this is an interesting point - yes the gov sponsors higher ed, but what does it get in return?... I really don't know, but suspect it is a lot.

a fan wrote:What this conversation lays bare is that the Republican voters stand for nothing. They're just a bunch of selfish wankers.

all politicians are selfish wankers. The Dems don't stand for anything other than the aggregation of power either. But this is the crux of a lot of the boards here - folks feel some weird need to chose sides and then will only see the flaws in the "other" side. We can conflate conservative and republican and we can conflate liberal with democrat - but neither party stands for a consistent or coherent line of thought as disciplined as a governing philosophy. BOTH parties govern with the philosophy of keep power and get rich from doing so. And we are idiots if we let them corral us into nicely controlled parties....

On that point, and in conclusion, I will make the following observations:

GOP "Stands For"
- Nationalism (in positive sense, but willing to tap the negative aspects as well)
- Law and Military
- the aggregation of power
- that's it

CONSERVATIVES stand for:
- mindfulness to the past and traditions that are grounded in thousands of years of human development and evolution
- the idea of - "hey, maybe we should be careful about this change we are about to implement"
- the duty owed by the individual to the collective

Dems "Stand For"
- Empowerment of Identity groups
- Central planning and control
- the aggregation of power
- that's it

LIBERALS stand for:
- Civic programs and experimentation - the idea of "hey, let's try this, I think it will be better"
- the duty owed by the collective to the individual
STILL somewhere back in the day....

...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
User avatar
HooDat
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:26 am

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:10 am

I think the key takeaway from your post, HooDat, is that you respect conservatives and liberals...but not the parties or politicians.

I tend to agree, in most cases, though I do think there are people of good will involved in the political process who are truly trying to achieve better outcomes for their constituencies and for the nation and for the world.

The problem, IMO, is that we, the electorate, don't often enough reward that constructive behavior, which involves trade-offs and compromises, experimentation and measurement, and instead reward the brick and bomb throwers. Those who yell the loudest, those who demonize the people of good will who oppose them in some respect. Left and right.

But right now, the brick and bomb throwers in control of virtually all levers of power are the Trumpists and what has become of the GOP as a result.

Which leads me to be supporting and voting, in this cycle and likely the next one, for R's only if they are clearly not Trumpists and for Dems anywhere that will result in at least some re-balancing of power, checks and balances.

As I'm in Maryland, that means a vote for R Hogan for Governor but for any Dems in national House and Senate, and a careful review (not yet completed) of the candidates for County Executive and State legislature. I tend to vote R locally for exactly the same reason as I will be voting D nationally in the next couple of cycles, to encourage a balance of power, a restraint on the dominant party. Governor and County Executive it's more about the individual than the party, though I've always tilted GOP here in MD all else being equal. Did the same when I lived in Massachusetts for 10 yrs. If I was in a deep red state I might have the opposite tilt, given that the D candidates in those states tend to be moderates in comparison to some of the far right jerks that the GOP puts up.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:31 am

HooDat wrote:
a fan wrote:The heyday that fake American conservatives always wish we could go back to---the 1950's---saw the heaviest hand we've ever had as a government. Taxes were triple where they are now. And 7 million young men were on the govt. dole---the GI Bill.

come afan - you are smarter than this. You are blinded by your focus on pointing out the hypocrisy of the R's. The reason the 1950's were the heyday of US exceptionalism is very simple supply and demand thing - the world had just killed about a quarter of the working-age population and had just finished literally blowing up the vast majority of the planet's manufacturing capacity in every developed country except for the USA. Of course we had prosperity - we were the home to every possible job in the world other than digging out the rubble of Europe and Japan (that was of course fueled by US production). There were gov't handouts, but that is not the reason why the US in particular prospered.

/quote]

I'd argue that you are both 'correct' in a sense.

Certainly our economic expansion opportunity was primarily driven by a lack of a competitive alternatives due to the ravages of war. We had both population and infrastructure, and a massive home market from which to expand rapidly globally as the former imperial powers withdrew.

But at the same time, afan is correct that this expansion was successful in building a large, successful middle class, rather than a bi-modal distribution of wealth, largely because of 'socialist' taxation and redistributionist policies. Tremendous expansion of infrastructure was paid for by these high taxes with great ROI in GDP and thus jobs and wealth accumulation, leading to more tax revenue. The GI Bill was indeed an terrific boon to building a middle class, with education and home ownership rates skyrocketing. These 'socialist' policies were indeed instrumental to the growth and success of the middle class.

However, it needs to be remembered that not all Americans had the same opportunities in this boom period. Opportunities were very much restricted by race.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby HooDat » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:01 pm

indeed.

the other factor to keep in mind is that those taxation policies were politically tolerated because of two things: (1) a surge in civic pride as a result of the war, and (2) the prosperity that our virtual monopoly status afforded the folks at the top (it was easy to share the wealth, because there was plenty of it).

Interestingly, over the past 20 years or so, we have had unprecedented wealth, and yet we have lacked the civic pride to want to share the benefits.

This is where some good old fashioned conservative nationalism (eg: civic pride) would come in handy. But civic pride and the sense of the obligation of the individual to the collective has been significantly undermined by the globalist and post-modernist agendas.
STILL somewhere back in the day....

...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
User avatar
HooDat
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:26 am

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby HooDat » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:03 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote:ut right now, the brick and bomb throwers in control of virtually all levers of power are the Trumpists and what has become of the GOP as a result.

I couldn't let this one slip by without comment - the LITERAL brick throwers right now are aligned with the Dems.........
STILL somewhere back in the day....

...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
User avatar
HooDat
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:26 am

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby Bandito » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:11 pm

jhu72 wrote:The single biggest problem with socialism, has been the lack of a definition. The history of socialism is one of factions arguing amongst themselves for the mantle of "true socialism" much to the benefit of those arguing against socialism. Socialism is growing in popularity in the US. I think largely because people are looking at it from the standpoint of an operational definition, issue based definition, not some bit of dogma. A practical socialism. Young people certainly seem far less interested in labels than actual policies. The fact is, you can't live in the US today and not be a socialist, to some degree. A fan and I have been pointing this out since forever. The right's old scare tactic is working less well.


The issue is people won't admit that socialism has singlehandedly failed everywhere it has been tried. Not only has it failed miserably, millions of people have died because of it. We don't want it in the US. If you want it so bad, move to where it exists. And don't cite the Scandanavian countries. They are nothing like the US. They are homogenous. We are not. Their countries are also very small in population. It is apples to oranges. Again, move somewhere that already has it. I would recommend Venezuela. I heard its socialist economy is thriving!!
Bandito
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:31 am
Location: West Yellowstone, MT

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:14 pm

HooDat wrote:
MDlaxfan76 wrote:ut right now, the brick and bomb throwers in control of virtually all levers of power are the Trumpists and what has become of the GOP as a result.

I couldn't let this one slip by without comment - the LITERAL brick throwers right now are aligned with the Dems.........



hmmm, not sure what you're specifically referring to, but certainly the left and the right have their respective share of 'brick throwers', "LITERAL" or figurative. Always been the case. Neither should be rewarded electorally for this behavior, again literal or figurative.

It's just that the ones now in control of all levers of governmental power are the Trumpist ones. No checks and balances, so the extremes are holding full sway.

I think we agree.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:32 pm

Bandito wrote:
jhu72 wrote:The single biggest problem with socialism, has been the lack of a definition. The history of socialism is one of factions arguing amongst themselves for the mantle of "true socialism" much to the benefit of those arguing against socialism. Socialism is growing in popularity in the US. I think largely because people are looking at it from the standpoint of an operational definition, issue based definition, not some bit of dogma. A practical socialism. Young people certainly seem far less interested in labels than actual policies. The fact is, you can't live in the US today and not be a socialist, to some degree. A fan and I have been pointing this out since forever. The right's old scare tactic is working less well.


The issue is people won't admit that socialism has singlehandedly failed everywhere it has been tried. Not only has it failed miserably, millions of people have died because of it. We don't want it in the US. If you want it so bad, move to where it exists. And don't cite the Scandanavian countries. They are nothing like the US. They are homogenous. We are not. Their countries are also very small in population. It is apples to oranges. Again, move somewhere that already has it. I would recommend Venezuela. I heard its socialist economy is thriving!!


Bandito, thanks for participating without profanity or insult.

I'm not sure why you're ignoring the nuance.

I don't think anyone on here has argued that Venezuela or China or the USSR or Cuba would be models for an effective mix of capitalism, democracy, and socialism. You're picking a fight where there isn't one, at least here on this thread.

I bolded the relevant line in '72's post you quoted above. The question is to what degree of "socialism" and which policies would be a good fit within the American model, and which would not fit, would be ineffective/misguided. But the denial, by some, that there aren't already, and for a long time, elements of 'socialism' in the American model is counter-productive to addressing actual policy choices.

BTW, I quite agree that the Scandinavian model indeed benefits from certain types of homogeneity, but I don't think that actually has anything to do with whether their degree of socialism works or not. It has all sorts of other impacts, for better or worse, but ethnic homogeneity is no guarantee of success, nor is ethnic diversity a predictor of failure.

That is, unless you're saying that people don't mind supporting folks that look like them with social spending, but if they don't look or worship like them they don't see it the same way. But that's a political argument, not an economic one.

As a conservative, I'm suspicious of rapid change and large scale government control, so generally think that Sanders' and O-C's policy prescriptions, and here in MD, Gov wannabe Ben Jealous' policy prescriptions go too far, but I think it's a weak argument to try to conflate what they say as self-described 'socialists' with Venezuela style "socialism" much less the communist dictatorship examples you gave. You don't need the 'scare tactic' to argue against massive increases in social spending and government control.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby HooDat » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
HooDat wrote:
MDlaxfan76 wrote:ut right now, the brick and bomb throwers in control of virtually all levers of power are the Trumpists and what has become of the GOP as a result.

I couldn't let this one slip by without comment - the LITERAL brick throwers right now are aligned with the Dems.........



hmmm, not sure what you're specifically referring to, but certainly the left and the right have their respective share of 'brick throwers', "LITERAL" or figurative. Always been the case. Neither should be rewarded electorally for this behavior, again literal or figurative.

It's just that the ones now in control of all levers of governmental power are the Trumpist ones. No checks and balances, so the extremes are holding full sway.

I think we agree.

perhaps you meant metaphorical bricks, I meant real live bricks being thrown by people ---- you know like those folks in the black headmasks.....
STILL somewhere back in the day....

...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
User avatar
HooDat
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:26 am

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby Bandito » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:04 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
Bandito wrote:
jhu72 wrote:The single biggest problem with socialism, has been the lack of a definition. The history of socialism is one of factions arguing amongst themselves for the mantle of "true socialism" much to the benefit of those arguing against socialism. Socialism is growing in popularity in the US. I think largely because people are looking at it from the standpoint of an operational definition, issue based definition, not some bit of dogma. A practical socialism. Young people certainly seem far less interested in labels than actual policies. The fact is, you can't live in the US today and not be a socialist, to some degree. A fan and I have been pointing this out since forever. The right's old scare tactic is working less well.


The issue is people won't admit that socialism has singlehandedly failed everywhere it has been tried. Not only has it failed miserably, millions of people have died because of it. We don't want it in the US. If you want it so bad, move to where it exists. And don't cite the Scandanavian countries. They are nothing like the US. They are homogenous. We are not. Their countries are also very small in population. It is apples to oranges. Again, move somewhere that already has it. I would recommend Venezuela. I heard its socialist economy is thriving!!


Bandito, thanks for participating without profanity or insult.

I'm not sure why you're ignoring the nuance.

I don't think anyone on here has argued that Venezuela or China or the USSR or Cuba would be models for an effective mix of capitalism, democracy, and socialism. You're picking a fight where there isn't one, at least here on this thread.

I bolded the relevant line in '72's post you quoted above. The question is to what degree of "socialism" and which policies would be a good fit within the American model, and which would not fit, would be ineffective/misguided. But the denial, by some, that there aren't already, and for a long time, elements of 'socialism' in the American model is counter-productive to addressing actual policy choices.

BTW, I quite agree that the Scandinavian model indeed benefits from certain types of homogeneity, but I don't think that actually has anything to do with whether their degree of socialism works or not. It has all sorts of other impacts, for better or worse, but ethnic homogeneity is no guarantee of success, nor is ethnic diversity a predictor of failure.

That is, unless you're saying that people don't mind supporting folks that look like them with social spending, but if they don't look or worship like them they don't see it the same way. But that's a political argument, not an economic one.

As a conservative, I'm suspicious of rapid change and large scale government control, so generally think that Sanders' and O-C's policy prescriptions, and here in MD, Gov wannabe Ben Jealous' policy prescriptions go too far, but I think it's a weak argument to try to conflate what they say as self-described 'socialists' with Venezuela style "socialism" much less the communist dictatorship examples you gave. You don't need the 'scare tactic' to argue against massive increases in social spending and government control.


JHU72 describes a mixed economy. A mixed economy is not a socialist economy. Socialism sounds great but in reality it leads to destruction of wealth, creativity, incentive, profit, invention and a loss of life. History proves that point well. I don't understand what your point is regarding JHU's statement? He isn't correct. We are heading down a very dangerous slope if the Dems gain power. O-C can't even put together a coherent sentence. There is no way she understands the perils of socialism, nor do I think she cares. She deals with feelings, not facts. They have proven time and again not to understand the dangers of socialism, nor how we would afford it. They hate that there is a wealth gap in the US. But facts prove with hard work and determination one can improve their status in the US if they want to. Instead people want to take from Peter to pay Paul at an epic scale mainly because they are jealous of other's successes compared to their own. Again, if they love it so much, they should move to where it is. We are not a socialist society and I pray we never become one.
Bandito
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:31 am
Location: West Yellowstone, MT

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:16 pm

Bandito wrote:
MDlaxfan76 wrote:
Bandito wrote:
jhu72 wrote:The single biggest problem with socialism, has been the lack of a definition. The history of socialism is one of factions arguing amongst themselves for the mantle of "true socialism" much to the benefit of those arguing against socialism. Socialism is growing in popularity in the US. I think largely because people are looking at it from the standpoint of an operational definition, issue based definition, not some bit of dogma. A practical socialism. Young people certainly seem far less interested in labels than actual policies. The fact is, you can't live in the US today and not be a socialist, to some degree. A fan and I have been pointing this out since forever. The right's old scare tactic is working less well.


The issue is people won't admit that socialism has singlehandedly failed everywhere it has been tried. Not only has it failed miserably, millions of people have died because of it. We don't want it in the US. If you want it so bad, move to where it exists. And don't cite the Scandanavian countries. They are nothing like the US. They are homogenous. We are not. Their countries are also very small in population. It is apples to oranges. Again, move somewhere that already has it. I would recommend Venezuela. I heard its socialist economy is thriving!!


Bandito, thanks for participating without profanity or insult.

I'm not sure why you're ignoring the nuance.

I don't think anyone on here has argued that Venezuela or China or the USSR or Cuba would be models for an effective mix of capitalism, democracy, and socialism. You're picking a fight where there isn't one, at least here on this thread.

I bolded the relevant line in '72's post you quoted above. The question is to what degree of "socialism" and which policies would be a good fit within the American model, and which would not fit, would be ineffective/misguided. But the denial, by some, that there aren't already, and for a long time, elements of 'socialism' in the American model is counter-productive to addressing actual policy choices.

BTW, I quite agree that the Scandinavian model indeed benefits from certain types of homogeneity, but I don't think that actually has anything to do with whether their degree of socialism works or not. It has all sorts of other impacts, for better or worse, but ethnic homogeneity is no guarantee of success, nor is ethnic diversity a predictor of failure.

That is, unless you're saying that people don't mind supporting folks that look like them with social spending, but if they don't look or worship like them they don't see it the same way. But that's a political argument, not an economic one.

As a conservative, I'm suspicious of rapid change and large scale government control, so generally think that Sanders' and O-C's policy prescriptions, and here in MD, Gov wannabe Ben Jealous' policy prescriptions go too far, but I think it's a weak argument to try to conflate what they say as self-described 'socialists' with Venezuela style "socialism" much less the communist dictatorship examples you gave. You don't need the 'scare tactic' to argue against massive increases in social spending and government control.


JHU72 describes a mixed economy. A mixed economy is not a socialist economy. Socialism sounds great but in reality it leads to destruction of wealth, creativity, incentive, profit, invention and a loss of life. History proves that point well. I don't understand what your point is? We are heading down a very dangerous slope if the Dems gain power. They have proven time and again not to understand the dangers of socialism, nor how we would afford it. They deal with feelings. They hate that there is a wealth gap in the US. But facts prove with hard work and determination one can improve their status in the US if they want to. Instead people want to take from Peter to pay Paul at an epic scale. Again, if they love it so much, they should move to where it is. We are not a socialist society and I pray we never become one.


Again, the Sanders and O-C's on the far left of the Dem party are not remotely advocating Venezuela style socialism, just a "mixed economy" with more social redistributionist spending than we have now under the logic that these are 'investments' in a more productive, as well as more 'fair' society. You and I and everyone else here on this thread would agree, indeed Sanders and O-C would agree, that we want no part of Venezuela style socialism, much less Cuba, China, USSSR etc versions of repressive communist dictatorships.

You're the only one on here laboring under the definition of "socialism" as meaning the extreme versions, rather than the "mixed economies"; again, it's not what everyone else means, including Sanders and O-C for that matter.

The reasonable question, rather than the false bogeyman argument, is whether the proposed 'socialist' policies go too far, would have unintended consequences, and would produce less productivity and 'fairness' over the long haul.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby a fan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:21 pm

Bandito wrote:JHU72 describes a mixed economy. A mixed economy is not a socialist economy. Socialism sounds great but in reality it leads to destruction of wealth, creativity, incentive, profit, invention and a loss of life. History proves that point well. I don't understand what your point is regarding JHU's statement? He isn't correct. We are heading down a very dangerous slope if the Dems gain power.

We are a mixed economy. You are correct. It's capitalism mixed with socialism. The easy example of socialism are our State University systems: Colleges owned and managed by the government. That's the definition socialism to the letter. Same goes for our National Park system. Easy for anyone to agree that both of these examples are the definition of socialism.

What is it that you think the Dems or Ocascio want to do, Bandito, that you think is socialism? Do you think Bernie Sanders wants to open the Federal Shoe Factory so that the government can compete with Nike?

Please clarify.
a fan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:05 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby HooDat » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:58 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote:The reasonable question, rather than the false bogeyman argument, is whether the proposed 'socialist' policies go too far, would have unintended consequences, and would produce less productivity and 'fairness' over the long haul.
these are very good questions, and we should be focusing on how price discovery takes place in these models.

The "bogeyman" that I fear, and maybe others do too, is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialist economies concentrate power, because you need decision-makers. Socialism sounds great. It is the implementation of socialism that is very, very hard to get right.
STILL somewhere back in the day....

...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
User avatar
HooDat
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:26 am

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby MDlaxfan76 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:05 pm

HooDat wrote:
MDlaxfan76 wrote:The reasonable question, rather than the false bogeyman argument, is whether the proposed 'socialist' policies go too far, would have unintended consequences, and would produce less productivity and 'fairness' over the long haul.
these are very good questions, and we should be focusing on how price discovery takes place in these models.

The "bogeyman" that I fear, and maybe others do too, is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialist economies concentrate power, because you need decision-makers. Socialism sounds great. It is the implementation of socialism that is very, very hard to get right.


I'd agree with that (esp. re price discovery), but of course we're not talking about the extremes of "absolute power" that couple "socialism" with "dictatorship". That combination is the rightful bogeyman.

This is a question of how much "socialism" is desirable on balance, not whether any is desirable.

I do get concerned with this 'populism' of the right that we are seeing, with the authoritarian degradation of checks and balances, rule of law, etc.

Whether it comes from the right or from the left as a pendulum swing, it's the authoritarian aspects that concern me the most, not the "capitalism" versus "socialism" trade-offs.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby ChairmanOfTheBoard » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:11 pm

like i always write... degrees. we are arguing degrees.
There are 29,413,039 corporations in America; but only one Chairman of the Board.
User avatar
ChairmanOfTheBoard
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:40 pm
Location: Having a beer with CWBJ in Helsinki, Finland

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby ChairmanOfTheBoard » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:11 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote:The problem, IMO, is that we, the electorate, don't often enough reward that constructive behavior, which involves trade-offs and compromises, experimentation and measurement, and instead reward the brick and bomb throwers. Those who yell the loudest, those who demonize the people of good will who oppose them in some respect. Left and right.


AH- yes, let's focus on that for a second- because i think you're on to something.

WHY do you think the brick/bomb throwers get rewarded? i submit because it puts asses in seats. so it gets airtime. and when it gets airtime...
There are 29,413,039 corporations in America; but only one Chairman of the Board.
User avatar
ChairmanOfTheBoard
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:40 pm
Location: Having a beer with CWBJ in Helsinki, Finland

Re: Did You Build That?

Postby runrussellrun » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:38 am

Bandito wrote:
JHU72 describes a mixed economy. A mixed economy is not a socialist economy. Socialism sounds great but in reality it leads to destruction of wealth, creativity, incentive, profit, invention and a loss of life. History proves that point well. I don't understand what your point is regarding JHU's statement? He isn't correct. We are heading down a very dangerous slope if the Dems gain power. O-C can't even put together a coherent sentence. There is no way she understands the perils of socialism, nor do I think she cares. She deals with feelings, not facts. They have proven time and again not to understand the dangers of socialism, nor how we would afford it. They hate that there is a wealth gap in the US. But facts prove with hard work and determination one can improve their status in the US if they want to. Instead people want to take from Peter to pay Paul at an epic scale mainly because they are jealous of other's successes compared to their own. Again, if they love it so much, they should move to where it is. We are not a socialist society and I pray we never become one.


WCWFO- Don't remember this type of economic system or name while in Tydings Hall, but it appears apprepo. Don't it bandito?

White Collar Welfare For the Oligarchy. You enjoy the to small to succeed mantra and government rules? Welcome to WCWFO. (one need to look no further that the requirements to run a mortgage company or start a pot dispensary as just a few examples )

Back to RRR's basics. Today we look at gardisal (9)-HPV "vaccine" and how they didn't build that.
Last edited by runrussellrun on Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
runrussellrun
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:07 am

Re: Did You Build That?-HPV vaccine

Postby runrussellrun » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:08 am

Makers of the useless HPV vaccine, Gardisal & (9)/ Merck and Cervarix/ GlaxoSmithKline, both give equally to the two political parties here in the USA. (Even though GlaxoSmith is NOT a US company )

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former CDC head when Gardisal was approved, now works for Merck. Move on, nothing to see here.

Look no further than the Bayh Dole act and see how tax dollars created HPV vaccines (U of Rochester, Georgetown ) and CONTINUE to develop marketing (forced vaccines via laws ) Yale, U of Texas,etc get to "study" ways to force feed this useless vaccine on US citizens and the world.

FDA now approves of giving HPV up to age 45 (more market share)
runrussellrun
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:07 am

Re: Did You Build That?-HPV vaccine

Postby Typical Lax Dad » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:35 am

runrussellrun wrote:Makers of the useless HPV vaccine, Gardisal & (9)/ Merck and Cervarix/ GlaxoSmithKline, both give equally to the two political parties here in the USA. (Even though GlaxoSmith is NOT a US company )

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former CDC head when Gardisal was approved, now works for Merck. Move on, nothing to see here.

Look no further than the Bayh Dole act and see how tax dollars created HPV vaccines (U of Rochester, Georgetown ) and CONTINUE to develop marketing (forced vaccines via laws ) Yale, U of Texas,etc get to "study" ways to force feed this useless vaccine on US citizens and the world.

FDA now approves of giving HPV up to age 45 (more market share)


I don’t care about the politics. Don’t want my kids to contract polio. You can advise your progeny to ignore science because someone is making money.
Typical Lax Dad
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Did You Build That?-HPV vaccine

Postby runrussellrun » Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:14 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote:
runrussellrun wrote:Makers of the useless HPV vaccine, Gardisal & (9)/ Merck and Cervarix/ GlaxoSmithKline, both give equally to the two political parties here in the USA. (Even though GlaxoSmith is NOT a US company )

Dr. Julie Gerberding, former CDC head when Gardisal was approved, now works for Merck. Move on, nothing to see here.

Look no further than the Bayh Dole act and see how tax dollars created HPV vaccines (U of Rochester, Georgetown ) and CONTINUE to develop marketing (forced vaccines via laws ) Yale, U of Texas,etc get to "study" ways to force feed this useless vaccine on US citizens and the world.

FDA now approves of giving HPV up to age 45 (more market share)


I don’t care about the politics. Don’t want my kids to contract polio. You can advise your progeny to ignore science because someone is making money.


You lie. You care very much about politics. That's why you chime in, every single day, on the politics thread. (cue the response, I don't care about political parites, is what I meant )

And, can't we EVER be specific on a thread and stay on topic? I wasn't talking about the polio vaccine. I was VERY specifically talking about the HPV vaccine and obvious ties to "collusion" . Go to another thread and discuss generalities please. We all know most topics get muddied enough already. Please help build the "you didn't build that" thread with incite and thoughts.
runrussellrun
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to POLITICS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest