warren buffet and nu

[Blackshirt96]

 

 

Memorial Stadium concessions would be ran by Dairy Queen if Buffet had his way.

I don't see an issue with this.

Chicken basket with fries and gravy, please.

 

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

 

I can see you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer , "necessary illusions". Re: capitalism: most(all) of the world is capitalistic and most people in the world are poor, often to a desperate degree:

 

 

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening...

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

 

Just to clarify your remark re: 'prosperity', capitalism concentrates control of resources, wealth, and power in the hands of the few and leaves the masses--working classes, in particular--on the edge of survival, and that's a fact. "Capitalism", in America, is heavily state subsidized, especially in the fields of technology, finance, and agriculture(ask any famer in NE, for e.g.), and monopolization, so the whole 'free market capitalism' claim is basically a lie in that regard. I defer to Chomsky's term, "really existing capitalism":

 

 

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term "really existing capitalism" is what really exists and what is called "capitalism." The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term "capitalism" is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance. It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of "really existing capitalism" from official "free-market capitalism." To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets...

 

"Really existing capitalism - RECD for short (pronounced 'wrecked') - is radically incompatible with democracy."

 

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26538-can-civilization-survive-really-existing-capitalism-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

I can see you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer , "necessary illusions". Re: capitalism: most(all) of the world is capitalistic and most people in the world are poor, often to a desperate degree:

 

Almost half the world over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

 

Just to clarify your remark re: 'prosperity', capitalism concentrates control of resources, wealth, and power in the hnads of the few and leaves the masses--working classes, in particular--on the edge of survival, and that's a fact. "Capitalism", in America, is heavily state subsidized, especially in the fields of technology, finance, and agriculture(ask any famer in NE, for e.g.), and monopolization, so the whole 'free market capitalism' claim is basically a lie in that regard. I defer to Chomsky's term, "really existing capitalism":

 

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term "really existing capitalism" is what really exists and what is called "capitalism." The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term "capitalism" is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance. It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of "really existing capitalism" from official "free-market capitalism." To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets...

"Really existing capitalism - RECD for short (pronounced 'wrecked') - is radically incompatible with democracy."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26538-can-civilization-survive-really-existing-capitalism-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Ironic that you start your response with "you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer, 'necessary illusions.'"

 

Let's look at the facts. Where do people have the most freedoms and are the most prosperous? And where do people have the least and limited rights? I'm letting you answer so you will see the obvious disconnect with your statements. You talk about the worlds poor - where are most located? Where are the rich and the most free? A coincidence?

 

There is some much wrong with your quotes and comments that I don't have time to fully address, but it is obvious you have confused concepts and a lack of understanding of what is capitalism.

 

No county is fully capitalist. A sliding scale is a more appropriate view. The things you suggest are bad (government subsidies and the like) are the opposite of capitalism. It is the government deciding what people should do with their own property (by tax and legislation) that is antithetical to capitalism.

[raw1]

Nebraska is not losing a competitive advantage to other schools because of facilities. they have the best money can buy. The University is well taken care of by its boosters, unlike Oregon before Nike figured out a marketing advantage and the appropriate loopholes in NCAA rules to get their swoosh (and those horrible uniforms) out in the public's eye every Saturday. Phil Knight is in the business of selling athletic products. Warren Buffet isn't. It is that simple.

 

Nebraska's senior administration better be hoping and praying this Mike Riley thing works out because if it doesn't there is going to be chaos in Lincoln. They seem to be betting Mike Riley is the next Tom Osborne and that is just not going to come to pass. If he falls flat, recruiting will take another step backward and we will be on the same plain as Illinois and Indiana in the Big Ten. Right now we are somewhere behind Minnesota for Gods sake! Minnesota!

 

Ironically I think Lawrence Phillips got it right in one of those letters. Until they get back to practicing the way they used to they are not going get back to being the team that won national championships. And that makes sense especially since we can't recruit on par with the SEC teams or any team from the south. We have to take lesser talented kids and toughen them up, get them in better shape than their opponents and be the most physical team in the country.

 

It is not facilities and Warren Buffet can't toughen up recruits.

[huKSer]

Phil Knight is in the business of selling athletic products. Warren Buffet isn't. It is that simple.

 

Damn it, Warren. Buy Nike out and everybody will be happy.

[2ndNnine]

[Flat Water]

 

Phil Knight is in the business of selling athletic products. Warren Buffet isn't. It is that simple.

 

Damn it, Warren. Buy Nike out and everybody will be happy.

 

Yes, this!

 

Perhaps there is another rich Husker fan who can play "let's give to the Nebraska Athletic Department"? Which on of you is that person?

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

I can see you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer , "necessary illusions". Re: capitalism: most(all) of the world is capitalistic and most people in the world are poor, often to a desperate degree:

 

Almost half the world over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

 

Just to clarify your remark re: 'prosperity', capitalism concentrates control of resources, wealth, and power in the hnads of the few and leaves the masses--working classes, in particular--on the edge of survival, and that's a fact. "Capitalism", in America, is heavily state subsidized, especially in the fields of technology, finance, and agriculture(ask any famer in NE, for e.g.), and monopolization, so the whole 'free market capitalism' claim is basically a lie in that regard. I defer to Chomsky's term, "really existing capitalism":

 

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term "really existing capitalism" is what really exists and what is called "capitalism." The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term "capitalism" is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance. It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of "really existing capitalism" from official "free-market capitalism." To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets...

"Really existing capitalism - RECD for short (pronounced 'wrecked') - is radically incompatible with democracy."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26538-can-civilization-survive-really-existing-capitalism-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Ironic that you start your response with "you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer, 'necessary illusions.'"

 

Let's look at the facts. Where do people have the most freedoms and are the most prosperous? And where do people have the least and limited rights? I'm letting you answer so you will see the obvious disconnect with your statements. You talk about the worlds poor - where are most located? Where are the rich and the most free? A coincidence?

 

There is some much wrong with your quotes and comments that I don't have time to fully address, but it is obvious you have confused concepts and a lack of understanding of what is capitalism.

 

No county is fully capitalist. A sliding scale is a more appropriate view. The things you suggest are bad (government subsidies and the like) are the opposite of capitalism. It is the government deciding what people should do with their own property (by tax and legislation) that is antithetical to capitalism..

Yikes, Mr. Dagerow, it appears you're quite uninformed about the way the U.S. and world political economies really work and evidently you're unfamiliar with the practice of imperialism(namely the U.S. brand)--neo colonialization--which I find pretty disturbing but not totally unexpected. I suppose if I pointed out that the U.S military--as one small example--is, economically speaking, a socialist organization(hint, funded by the state), that would come as as shock to you. You have heard of FDR, Keynesian economics(New Deal, social security, medicare, pensions, public schools, etc), right? "Neo liberalism", ring a bell?

 

Anyway, good luck with your Ayn Rand fantasies--it's never going to happen, the corporations couldn't survive w/o gov't $ intervention. Chomsky's, "Profit over People"-Ch 1, I highly recommend it and also know there's 0% chance you'd read it and even lesser chance you'd comprehend it, but that's to be expected from folks on a football msg board I guess.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

I can see you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer , "necessary illusions". Re: capitalism: most(all) of the world is capitalistic and most people in the world are poor, often to a desperate degree:

 

Almost half the world over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

 

Just to clarify your remark re: 'prosperity', capitalism concentrates control of resources, wealth, and power in the hnads of the few and leaves the masses--working classes, in particular--on the edge of survival, and that's a fact. "Capitalism", in America, is heavily state subsidized, especially in the fields of technology, finance, and agriculture(ask any famer in NE, for e.g.), and monopolization, so the whole 'free market capitalism' claim is basically a lie in that regard. I defer to Chomsky's term, "really existing capitalism":

 

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term "really existing capitalism" is what really exists and what is called "capitalism." The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term "capitalism" is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance. It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of "really existing capitalism" from official "free-market capitalism." To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets...

"Really existing capitalism - RECD for short (pronounced 'wrecked') - is radically incompatible with democracy."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26538-can-civilization-survive-really-existing-capitalism-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Ironic that you start your response with "you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer, 'necessary illusions.'"

 

Let's look at the facts. Where do people have the most freedoms and are the most prosperous? And where do people have the least and limited rights? I'm letting you answer so you will see the obvious disconnect with your statements. You talk about the worlds poor - where are most located? Where are the rich and the most free? A coincidence?

 

There is some much wrong with your quotes and comments that I don't have time to fully address, but it is obvious you have confused concepts and a lack of understanding of what is capitalism.

 

No county is fully capitalist. A sliding scale is a more appropriate view. The things you suggest are bad (government subsidies and the like) are the opposite of capitalism. It is the government deciding what people should do with their own property (by tax and legislation) that is antithetical to capitalism.

 

[okaive]

The better question to ask is why people like Knight and Pickens waste money and turn college football into an arms race when there are much better things they could be doing with it. It's Buffet's money. Wonder how much the OP donates to Nebraska, or if he just wants to squawk about what he thinks someone else should be doing with their money.

 

 

While Pickens runs OSU with his money, he also gives alot of money to other colleges for research. He is also the reason why Oklahoma is huge in CNG for vehicles.

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

I can see you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer , "necessary illusions". Re: capitalism: most(all) of the world is capitalistic and most people in the world are poor, often to a desperate degree:

 

Almost half the world over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where income differentials are widening...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

 

Just to clarify your remark re: 'prosperity', capitalism concentrates control of resources, wealth, and power in the hnads of the few and leaves the masses--working classes, in particular--on the edge of survival, and that's a fact. "Capitalism", in America, is heavily state subsidized, especially in the fields of technology, finance, and agriculture(ask any famer in NE, for e.g.), and monopolization, so the whole 'free market capitalism' claim is basically a lie in that regard. I defer to Chomsky's term, "really existing capitalism":

 

First, let me say that what I have in mind by the term "really existing capitalism" is what really exists and what is called "capitalism." The United States is the most important case, for obvious reasons. The term "capitalism" is vague enough to cover many possibilities. It is commonly used to refer to the US economic system, which receives substantial state intervention, ranging from creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks, and which is highly monopolized, further limiting market reliance. It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the departures of "really existing capitalism" from official "free-market capitalism." To mention only a few examples, in the past 20 years, the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, carrying forward the oligopolistic character of the US economy. This directly undermines markets...

"Really existing capitalism - RECD for short (pronounced 'wrecked') - is radically incompatible with democracy."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26538-can-civilization-survive-really-existing-capitalism-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky

Ironic that you start your response with "you can't be inconvenienced by small things, such as facts, but prefer, 'necessary illusions.'"

 

Let's look at the facts. Where do people have the most freedoms and are the most prosperous? And where do people have the least and limited rights? I'm letting you answer so you will see the obvious disconnect with your statements. You talk about the worlds poor - where are most located? Where are the rich and the most free? A coincidence?

 

There is some much wrong with your quotes and comments that I don't have time to fully address, but it is obvious you have confused concepts and a lack of understanding of what is capitalism.

 

No county is fully capitalist. A sliding scale is a more appropriate view. The things you suggest are bad (government subsidies and the like) are the opposite of capitalism. It is the government deciding what people should do with their own property (by tax and legislation) that is antithetical to capitalism..

Yikes, Mr. Dagerow, it appears you're quite uninformed about the way the U.S. and world political economies really work and evidently you're unfamiliar with the practice of imperialism(namely the U.S. brand)--neo colonialization--which I find pretty disturbing but not totally unexpected. I suppose if I pointed out that the U.S military--as one small example--is, economically speaking, a socialist organization(hint, funded by the state), that would come as as shock to you. You have heard of FDR, Keynesian economics(New Deal, social security, medicare, pensions, public schools, etc), right? "Neo liberalism", ring a bell?

 

Anyway, good luck with your Ayn Rand fantasies--it's never going to happen, the corporations couldn't survive w/o gov't $ intervention. Chomsky's, "Profit over People"-Ch 1, I highly recommend it and also know there's 0% chance you'd read it and even lesser chance you'd comprehend it, but that's to be expected from folks on a football msg board I guess.

Again, you miss the point entirely. I guess I will have to spell it out to you:

 

I'm not taking about the United States. I'm taking about capitalism. Got it?

 

If you actually listen to what I'm saying, and not what you think I'm saying, it would be helpful in advancing any conversation.

 

(Oh, and trust me, I can crush you in any debate. I'm trying to be polite in addressing your ignorance. The only one that will think your right is you.)

[Guy Chamberlin]

Dag,

 

I'm not exactly sure the point you were trying to make about Capitalism - and it seemed pretty clear you were linking its ideal expression to the United States - but if you'd like to debate the reality vs. idealism of Capitalism (or any ideology) here on HuskerBoard, you don't need to be so polite.

 

By the way, you misspelled "your."

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to crush you right off the bat.

[Dagerow]

Dag,

 

I'm not exactly sure the point you were trying to make about Capitalism - and it seemed pretty clear you were linking its ideal expression to the United States - but if you'd like to debate the reality vs. idealism of Capitalism (or any ideology) here on HuskerBoard, you don't need to be so polite.

 

By the way, you misspelled "your."

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to crush you right off the bat.

Please explain were I linked the two? (I'm surprised that's the only grammatical/spelling error you found. Usually my writing, especially on these boards, is riddled with errors).

[Dagerow]

Dag,

 

I'm not exactly sure the point you were trying to make about Capitalism - and it seemed pretty clear you were linking its ideal expression to the United States - but if you'd like to debate the reality vs. idealism of Capitalism (or any ideology) here on HuskerBoard, you don't need to be so polite.

 

By the way, you misspelled "your."

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to crush you right off the bat.

Oh, and trust me, if corn responds, I will crush him. It is easy to see from his posts that he is weak.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Dag,

 

I'm not exactly sure the point you were trying to make about Capitalism - and it seemed pretty clear you were linking its ideal expression to the United States - but if you'd like to debate the reality vs. idealism of Capitalism (or any ideology) here on HuskerBoard, you don't need to be so polite.

 

By the way, you misspelled "your."

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to crush you right off the bat.

Please explain were I linked the two? (I'm surprised that's the only grammatical/spelling error you found. Usually my writing, especially on these boards, is riddled with errors).

 

 

See below. Either you were linking prosperity and freedom to the United States, or to a more generic Western Capitalism, neither of which exists without huge government assistance and cooperation. For that matter, millions of poor people are allowed forage, farm and trade with far less government intervention using far more unencumbered free market mechanisms.

 

It's really not as simple as you want to make it.

 

 

Let's look at the facts. Where do people have the most freedoms and are the most prosperous? And where do people have the least and limited rights? I'm letting you answer so you will see the obvious disconnect with your statements. You talk about the worlds poor - where are most located? Where are the rich and the most free? A coincidence?