warren buffet and nu

[huKSer]

 

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.

 

Shouldn't you "cream corn"?

[Hammerhead]

 

 

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.

 

Shouldn't you "cream corn"?

 

 

Cracking corn is always an option.

[huKSer]

 

So from what I gathered in reading the heated debate on this page, is that everyone in the world no matter economic status should be entitled to unlimited gravy fries. Am I following this correctly?

Free gravy fries for ALL!!!

 

I prefer

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Cracking corn is always an option.

 

You can crack corn but I don't care.

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

(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.)

 

I suppose if yo' momma is the referee, you may have a point there. BTW, your boy Scott Walker of Koch Bros fame and in true Ayn Randian form--not satisfied enough with his(and his Koch Bros sponsors) union busting efforts--recently cut the educational budget for UWiscy by ~$250 mil--this, after the UW had requested an increase of $95 mil., UW being one of the more affordable state U's in the country. Libertarians, champions of education--for the rich--and enemy of the working man. Which reminds me, I assume you went to NU, which is a socially(gov't) funded university, right? Well, anyway...

I see you have conceded because you realize your feeble mind couldn't engage in any rational discussion.

 

What do you do? Call names like a little baby. How mature and enlighten if you, and how to best make your point. Never engaging in the discussion, instead ALWAYS changing the subject to simple parrot taking points (republicans bad, Fox News bad, Koch bad, U.S. Bad, any rand bad). Your elusiveness is present because you can't confront the points I have made.

 

Indeed, you think by dropping names and quotes, your points have credence. Instead it highlightless your inability to address the issue. Almost all of your references and quotes are off point and reveal your lack of understanding what they and I are saying. I don't have to use quotes, reference or other people's words to defend my position. It is easy.

 

It is clear that you don't understand any of the people you have quoted, nor the subjects you have addressed. You simple are blind in your partisan talking point and can't see logic or the world as it is. Rather you see it how some people want you to see it, becoming a puppet to them. Blinded by partisanship and without any real understanding of their side, you continue in your posts to shovel bs.

 

Let me clue you in - I have never said anything about Ann rand and Scott walker. This isn't a discussion of whether walker addressed the unions in his state fairly. It is about capitalism (and, as a result of your diatribe, a country that allows such discussions without fear of retribution). It is apparent that you don't even don't know how people in other countries, who embrace your communist themed points, live. They long for freedom, prosperity and justice. You, who have the incredible comfort that this country provides, bad mouth it. Go live in other countries in the world, and then, tell me about their problems. It will make you realize how wrong you are.

[Dagerow]

I missed the part where anyone suggested an oppressive dictatorship is preferable to well-regulated, government sponsored Capitalism.

 

The debate is now -- as always -- about the amount of someone else's freedom we're willing to tolerate.

 

The libertarian/conservative angle is that even MORE freedom (aka less regulation) will allow even more of us to prosper, and there's compelling evidence that simply isn't true.

 

And if you want to open it up to other free and successful Capitalist nations, you'll find a heady brew of high taxes and socialism mixed in.

 

Like I said: not that simple.

 

Unless you're comparing apples and oranges.

As you know, I was comparing every country to every other country, and highlighting the fact that those who embrace capitalism enjoy more prosperity and rights then those who do not. It is disingenuous to suggest that I was comparing capitalism to just a dictatorship.

 

Yes, I agree, as you put it, "[t]he debate is now -- as always -- about the amount of someone else's freedom we're willing to tolerate." But I do not agree that there is compelling evidence that less freedom will allow us to prosper (or as you say, less freedom will encourage prosperity). Indeed, I think all of history has shown that not to be the case.

 

Freedom does not mean you have the right to harm others, and that (I believe, but may be wrong) is the disconnect in our thinking. Just as one cannot steal in the name of freedom, there are times where ones actions are limited because of the effects on others. True capitalism seeks to balance those competing interest, and give you control over yourself and your property. This control means you must give such respect to others as well.

 

On to your next point, socialized countries that have a quasi capitalist economy: In those instances, their economy and rights have been limited by what the country believed to be thier social responsibility. In most simple words, they have collectively sacrificed thier rights for what they believe to be a social responsibility. So, for example, they may believe the cost is worth it to provide socialized health for thier people. But, while that is a noble goal, it does come at the price of freedom (and prosperity).

 

This balancing of priorities is where any real discussion always seems to end. Some believe social welfare is a higher priority then freedom. Others believe differently.

[Dagerow]

I missed the part where anyone suggested an oppressive dictatorship is preferable to well-regulated, government sponsored Capitalism.

 

The debate is now -- as always -- about the amount of someone else's freedom we're willing to tolerate.

 

The libertarian/conservative angle is that even MORE freedom (aka less regulation) will allow even more of us to prosper, and there's compelling evidence that simply isn't true.

 

And if you want to open it up to other free and successful Capitalist nations, you'll find a heady brew of high taxes and socialism mixed in.

 

Like I said: not that simple.

 

Unless you're comparing apples and oranges.

As you know, I was comparing every country to every other country, and highlighting the fact that those who embrace capitalism enjoy more prosperity and rights then those who do not. It is disingenuous to suggest that I was comparing capitalism to just a dictatorship.

 

Yes, I agree, as you put it, "[t]he debate is now -- as always -- about the amount of someone else's freedom we're willing to tolerate." But I do not agree that there is compelling evidence that less freedom will allow us to prosper (or as you say, less freedom will encourage prosperity). Indeed, I think all of history has shown that not to be the case.

 

Freedom does not mean you have the right to harm others, and that (I believe, but may be wrong) is the disconnect in our thinking. Just as one cannot steal in the name of freedom, there are times where ones actions are limited because of the effects on others. True capitalism seeks to balance those competing interest, and give you control over yourself and your property. This control means you must give such respect to others as well.

 

On to your next point, socialized countries that have a quasi capitalist economy: In those instances, their economy and rights have been limited by what the country believed to be thier social responsibility. In most simple words, they have collectively sacrificed thier rights for what they believe to be a social responsibility. So, for example, they may believe the cost is worth it to provide socialized health for thier people. But, while that is a noble goal, it does come at the price of freedom (and prosperity).

 

This balancing of priorities is where any real discussion always seems to end. Some believe social welfare is a higher priority then freedom. Others believe differently.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

As you know, I was comparing every country to every other country, and highlighting the fact that those who embrace capitalism enjoy more prosperity and rights then those who do not. It is disingenuous to suggest that I was comparing capitalism to just a dictatorship.

 

All I had to go on were your exact words:

 

Instead, you should compare a country to another country; or a farmer in a capitalist leaning country to one in a communist/dictatorship/monarch/religious based country, and see which farmer enjoys more productivity, prosperity, and rights.

 

It's a weird argument anyway. Nobody disagrees with the obvious point, just the sweeping generalizations and false assumptions that surround it.

 

Which is, of course, a staple of most long-running HuskerBoard debates.

 

There's so much more to dismantle in your post, but I gotta go make some money.

[Dagerow]

 

 

As you know, I was comparing every country to every other country, and highlighting the fact that those who embrace capitalism enjoy more prosperity and rights then those who do not. It is disingenuous to suggest that I was comparing capitalism to just a dictatorship.

 

All I had to go on were your exact words:

 

Instead, you should compare a country to another country; or a farmer in a capitalist leaning country to one in a communist/dictatorship/monarch/religious based country, and see which farmer enjoys more productivity, prosperity, and rights.

 

It's a weird argument anyway. Nobody disagrees with the obvious point, just the sweeping generalizations and false assumptions that surround it.

 

Which is, of course, a staple of most long-running HuskerBoard debates.

 

There's so much more to dismantle in your post, but I gotta go make some money.

My exact words show the exact opposite. They describe a number of governments (almost all others that exist in a non capitalist country). You selectively chose one to distort.

 

You then state "Nobody disagrees with the obvious point, just the sweeping generalizations and false assumptions that surround it," but don't identify the the "sweeping generalizations and false assumptions" to which you refer. Man up if you want to challenge anything and spell out what you disagree with. Then we can go forward.

 

I have no problem if you have better things to do the respond, like make money. These exchanges can become taxing, and I also have other things to do. But, if you do have time, I'd be glad to address your perceived errors in my comments, and hope you spell out your view. I don't like to leave comments directed at my posts not responded to (when a response is warranted).

[Redux]

[Stumpy1]

 

[Dagerow]

Smashing-computer-GIF.gif

Post of the year.

[walksalone]

Unless Warren Buffet is going to bring back the option, how is anything in the past two pages football related?

[huKSer]

Unless Warren Buffet is going to bring back the option, how is anything in the past two pages football related?

Stumpy's blitz gif completely blew up the computer's play?????

[cornographic]

 

 

So from what I gathered in reading the heated debate on this page, is that everyone in the world no matter economic status should be entitled to unlimited gravy fries. Am I following this correctly?

Free gravy fries for ALL!!!

 

I prefer

 

 

Endorsed by the Murican Heart Association.