How You Contributed $11.9 Billion To The Presidential Election

It appears that those of the left side of the aisle are incapable of debating an issue without resorting to namecalling. Your idea of debate is calling someone a 'wingnut' or inferring that we're crazy as you did in this comment. Of course the last thing the left wants is actual debate. The left's favorite method of debate is STFU.

@Ronnie Schreiber Ronnie, they can't afford to think. If they did think then they would realize just how silly and unrealistic their beliefs are. Plus the've worked themselves into a frenzy because they've been told that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and evil. All in all, it's a pretty good way to live your life, no thought necessary, all emotions.

> It appears that those of the left side of the aisle are > incapable of debating an issue without resorting to namecalling. [4 minutes later] > Ronnie, they can’t afford to think. If they did think then > they would realize just how silly and unrealistic their > beliefs are. Plus the’ve worked themselves into a frenzy > because they’ve been told that anyone who disagrees with > them is stupid and evil. All in all, it’s a pretty good > way to live your life, no thought necessary, all emotions. I was going to pick out the part that was unproductively insulting, but I ended up quoting the entire MikeAR post. Ronnie, I didn't get into debating the points because I have no illusion that I'll convince you guys. All I'm trying to say (in a lighthearted way) is that I think your various conspiracy theories are a bit overwrought. I'm just checking in, registering my disagreement on those ideas. Never at any point did I say STFU, or try to tell you guys what you can and can't say. My opinion? I think that the administration has done what they could with a really, really bad situation, and I think the results so far are better than I expected. Frankly, I was on the side of 'let them go bankrupt.' Certainly not the party line. In retrospect, I think the bailouts were a better choice. At least it appears to be so far. But I also think the unions were 'saved' not out crony unionism, but because there was an honest feeling that that was what was best for the American auto worker. Are you convinced? No, I didn't think so. I was better off with the one liner.

@Jellodyne It's really sad but true but MikeAR's comment applies equally to both sides. Politics suck. It makes fellow countrymen into enemies. We as a society have to rise up above our base emotions as we have some really big issues that need fixing and we're not going to fix them by spouting conspiracy theories and name calling. McCarthyist is to communist/socialist as wignut is to moonbat. Saul Alinsky is equal to Karl Rove. Pissed-off redneck conservitive is equal to aging hippie liberal douche. Fox news is MSNBCx5 (ratings-wise anyway) Freedom is equal to Opportunity. Giant douche is equal to turd sandwich.

@Jellodyne There is one huge differnce between right and left, the right side generally wants to be left alone. They do not seek power and control over others. They react to overreaching by the left and get painted as zeolots by those who really do want power. What conspriracy theories have you seen here? There must be one somewhere or you wouldn't have made the tinfoil hat crack. If you see a conspiracy let the resat of us know. You just got called on your conservative-as-crackpot bs, that's all.

> There is one huge differnce between right and left, > the right side generally wants to be left alone. Well, THAT explains the Patriot Act, the TSA, the attempts to legalize what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, etc, etc, etc. I will grant there were plenty of democrats in on the massive privacy erosion during the previous administration, and I'll grant that the current one hasn't improved the situation, but those charge against our privacy and general rights to be left alone were led by the right. > They do not seek power and control over others. You know, you might be on to something... Most of the people running for office (aka 'attempting to seek power and control over others') on the Republican ticket these days are not true conservatives, since they clearly don't believe in ANY of the 'small government, states rights' conservative tennants. But regardless of what you want to call Neocons pandering to the religious right for votes, they're very much attempting to seek power and control. That's practically the definition of politics. > They react to overreaching by the left and get painted as > zeolots by those who really do want power. Or it could be that the left and moderates aren't actually twisting their mustaches and laughing evilly over your inevitable demise. It's just possible that they are trying their best to lead the country as best they can. > What conspriracy theories have you seen here? There must be > one somewhere or you wouldn’t have made the tinfoil hat crack. You'll not that despite your defensive reaction, I replied to the original poster, not a thread participant. "How You Contributed $11.9 Billion To The Presidential Election campain funding" is certainly the elephant in the room. Also Pawlenty's croney capitalism claim, and claims that GM and the unions got treatment that the neighborhood hardware store would not have. No shit, Tim. Let me throw this out there. GM and the UAW are both organizations which each are legally permitted to exist and represent a large number of people. The UAW represents the workers and GM represents its stockholders. The UAW actually represents a lot more Americans than GM. You can argue that the bankruptcy was a result of these two organizations locked in a death struggle. The way the auto bailout was structured allowed both of them to survive, sort of. I know some of the people in this thread would say that GM has more of a right to exist than the UAW, but why is that exactly? > If you see a conspiracy let the resat of us know. You just got > called on your conservative-as-crackpot bs, that’s all. I didn't get called on conservative-as-crackpot BS, because I never made that claim. I got called out and then insulted by you, as someone who is incapable of thought (sounds less than human!) because I called out certain crackpot theories (in my opinion, of course) as crackpot theories. . I'm sure it's totally coincidental that there have been a ton of recent conspiracy theories (birthers, Obama is a muslum, Obama is a socialist, everything Glen Beck ever said, etc).

There's got to be a balance between the value of work to the producer and the value of work to the worker. The most efficient worker for the factory owner is unpaid slave labor. It is in the best interest of the factory owner to pay their employees as little as possible, and it is in the interests of the employees to earn as much as possible. The rules of capitalism don't only apply to factory owners. Anyway, I've been dragged into this conversation too long. Like I said, I'm not going to convince you of anything. Just because someone comes to different conclusions than you doesn't mean they're not thinking, and that their eyes are not open. Your talk as though your opinions are the bedrock truths upon which reality is constructed. My humble viewpoint can leave no imprint on something so perfectly formed and impenetrably defended.

@Jellodyne There’s got to be a balance between the value of work to the producer and the value of work to the worker. There is naturally. You don't like where it balances. The most efficient worker for the factory owner is unpaid slave labor. Not true. Slave labor is inefficient, expensive and immoral. What a silly thing to claim. It is in the best interest of the factory owner to pay their employees as little as possible Not true. It is the best interest of the factory owner to pay employees enough to keep the employees' skills, experience and loyalty with a wage that is competitive enough to satisfy both parties. Underpaying an employee rewards the owner's competition when the employee leaves for a higher wage, bringing along the experience, insider knowledge and skills developed at the employer's expense. You are wrong. , and it is in the interests of the employees to earn as much as possible. Also not true. There are several factors as to why an employee would be willing to be paid less, but remain with an employer. Millions take part time jobs willingly when they could take full time positions. Ask any working mother. Ask any intern. The rules of capitalism don’t only apply to factory owners. What rules? So far you have been spouting out nonsense discredited decades ago. Have you owned a factory? Have you employed someone for full time work? Your statements are straight out of an obsolete text book published in 1920. Eugene Debs wouldn't have believed that crap and he ran for president almost a century ago. Honestly. How could you still believe the BS we were forced to memorize in college? I had to do it in two languages. I did it for the grades and the degrees. You actually believed it?

@Jellodyne I'm going to take a decent guess and say that you're one of those folks who thought the 1950s/early 1960s were the apex of American power and prosperity. And that you're going to stick to that thought come hell-and-high-water, never mind the obvious fact that the conditions that created such "prosperity" were as unsustainable as buying a $300K townhome in Las Vegas on the hopes you can flip it and get a $25K profit. The last decade has taught me a hard lesson: True economic, social, and technological advancement does not occur until the assets that help make such advancement possible are cheap enough for purchase by as many economic players as possible. Regrettably, that includes labor.