huKSer
All-American
Last edited by a moderator:
warren buffet and nu
- Thread starter ronsss
- Start date
- Status
Hammerhead
All-Conference
huKSer
All-American
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Dagerow
Special Teams Player
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dagerow
Special Teams Player
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
Special Teams Player
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
Heisman Trophy Winner
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
Special Teams Player
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).
Last edited by a moderator:
Dagerow
Special Teams Player
walksalone
Heisman Trophy Winner
Unless Warren Buffet is going to bring back the option, how is anything in the past two pages football related?
huKSer
All-American
cornographic
Banned
- Status