Artful Dodger: Let me guess... the alchemists are bringing the refreshments... because they're alchemists?

I don't know if I can stand one more year of this %#*^!!& poop!

Iamon lyme: Some area police are moving in and moving the losers out. About time too.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly's book is numbrer 4 on Amazon. Obama's is running #220,362.


Bet that drives the libs mad. And you can buy a hardcover of Obama's book for .01. That's too funny. It's not even worth a penny!

Artful Dodger: lol Yeah, the honeymoon is definitely over, and hopefully by next year the marriage as well. Hey AD, if I promise to give you something, will you send me $489,998.00 post haste? The only hitch is I can't tell what you'll get until you send the money... and maybe not even then.

I'm not worried about this proposal sounding stupid, because it's exactly the kind of specious, promise of hoping for something to change that many people fell for. As far as Obama is concerned, it was our responsibility to figure out just what it was we were supposed to be hoping for.

He never specified what we were supposed to hope would change, he never said. Now we know. And now he's got me hoping for some truly radical change, like tort reform and tax reform, and someone who won't just say he will defend and abide by the constitution, but actually do it.

Iamon lyme: The liberals just don't get it. they don't live in reality. If a liberal was a fish, it'd be a bottom feeder.

I'll send you the money you ask for. There's no need to tell me what it's for. After all, I need to send you the money to find out what you need it for. And even then you may not tell me. But that's ok. It's not my money anyway. I just worked hard for it and earned it on my own. But I don't feel entitled to it all.

There is one problem, I went to the bank where I keep the money, and they said my account only has $4.89 in savings and $9.98 in checking. It will cost 25.00 to transfer the funds. Can you pay for that? Then I'll send the rest.

;)

Artful Dodger: hahahaha... you 2 are idiots ROFL...nice ones of course....

Bernice: We're practicing to be liberal thinkers.

(1) Richmond City Code Section 26-390: "It shall be unlawful for any person to camp, tent, encamp or quarter upon any public grounds, parks, playfields, playgrounds or any public property owned or maintained by the city or lie upon any benches located within any such public property."

(2) Richmond City Code Section 26-397(a): "Unless otherwise provided in this section, all public parks, playgrounds and recreation areas in the city shall open at sunrise and shall close at sunset each day of the year." (e): "It shall be unlawful for any person other than a police officer of the city or state, an employee of the department of parks, recreation and community facilities acting in the scope of employment, or any other employee of the city acting in the scope of employment and having authorization from the director of parks, recreation and community facilities to go on, to go into or to occupy a public park, playground or recreation facility or area during hours other than as set out in this section."

(3) The City Code also sets forth fees that must be paid for use of public spaces. It does not matter whether you call it a "rally" or a "protest." You absolutely have a First Amendment right to assemble and to speak your voice and express your opinions. But you don't have a right to violate the law in doing so.

And for the SAME SPACE, the Tea Party had to pay over ten thousand dollars in fees. But the Occupiers have paid nothing and they are breaking the law.

So why are they getting a pass? BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE IN CHARGE OF RICHMOND!

Dishonesty runs rampant in the mind of liberals.

October 30, 2011
How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin?
James Lewis




How many climate modelers can dance on the head of a pin?

As many as the Earth Goddess Gaia will permit, if you're a True Believer. The eye of faith beholdeth miracles.

The latest "scientific proof" of climastrology just blew up, after only a week of mendacious, worldwide propaganda. (Again!)

The world can thank Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech for tossing a Molotov Cocktail into


"...the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all - the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'."

The Mail on Sunday (UK) did its basic journalistic duty by telephoning Professor Judith Curry, the coauthor on the study, to ask her if she agreed with the headlines around the world.


"Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it."

And ... guess what?


"... today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped. ...

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious 'Climategate' scandal two years ago."

Somebody's been doing journalism!

So here's a question for you.

What do the 99 percent kids on Wall Street have in common with climate modelers?

Neither of them can count.

Artful Dodger: Over 2 feet of snow in NH, at least 2 months earlier than we normally get this sort of stuff.

Bring on Global Warming! LOL

rod03801: I heard about that. The warmers will likely blame it on global warming. A cow farts and thny lobal wa rm ing.lo larming. lol

a great political ad!

http://youtu.be/StbrLkXDJmM

the M5 crash near somerset sound terrible.....does anybody know anything more? about numbers dead etc....I believe there were about 27 vehicles involved...worst in living memory.

Spiritual Judaism-One People...What an Oxymoron.

Artful Dodger: Hey Art, does this recent so called sex scandal manufactured by Democrats against Herman Cain remind you of another black republican who had to weather a similar attack before he could be confirmed as a Supreme Court judge? And do you think those same Democrats would be bright enough to sift through the clues I just gave as to who that black republican was (and still is)?

I'm thinking that as incentive for coming forward, the people behind finding these women have perhaps pointed out how the Supreme Court judges accuser was rewarded with a teaching position... teaching law, at the University level. Probably a course in ethics, because that would complete the picture of a world turned completely upside down.

The parallel between Obama/Cain and Carter/Reagan seems to be holding as well. Cain is shaping up to be as unassailable as Reagan was, when nothing untrue could be made to stick to him. I have a good feeling about Cain, as long as Republicans don't choose the Democrats favorite Republican running for office. There is a good reason for the elephant to be the animal representing the republican party.. elephants have long memories... I hope most republicans haven't forgotten that.

Iamon lyme: The Dems love mud. And the one thing that seems to be the easiest lie they can put forth is that of sexual misconduct. There are no witnesses. Just a she said (on national TV) and he said.

Some suggest that these women should take a polygraph. Not me. I say waterboard them and when they confess they lied, send them to Iran and drop them off. Kick them out of the country for good. hmmm, maybe Cuba is better.

It's fortunate that the republicans are above mud slinging.
Naturally accusing the democrats of being behind the allegations against Herman does not qualify as republican mud slinging in spite of there being no evidence that the dems are behind it. The evidence that the settlements are near 10 years old, of course, demonstrates the lengths democrats will go to prepare for future battles with potential up and coming republicans.

Iamon lyme: Did you know that one of the accusers works for Obama? Yeah, that's just a coincidence.

Kraushaar’s boss, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George, is actually a Bush administration appointee.
Nice try on turning Herman's inappropriate behavior into the result of a democratic conspiracy.

OWS is fizzling out.

Artful Dodger: What has happened to your "bestest friend"...?

Italy is broke, as is Greece, and Spain is well on the way, and poor Australia has Obamarama Drama...what a waste of money :(

Bernice: I guess he got tired of losing the arguments against me and left.

Artful Dodger: I think you could be right.......

8. @ExJon Nothing funnier than hearing Marxists complain about the state taking their property. #OWS

7. @derekahunter Funny how quickly the #OWS crowd went from "Everything belongs to everyone" to "Hey, that's my stuff!" #OccupyWallStNYC #MicCheck #p2

Artful Dodger:
I have heard no one from OWS state anything of the kind.
If you're paraphrasing, it's blatantly inaccurate.
If anyone thinks that the income disparity is the result of laziness on those who feel they don't have enough, that too is untrue. The idea that the rich are wealthy because of hard work is true, but it's the hard work of the employees that has made them wealthy rather than their own hard work alone.
It isn't unreasonable for workers to want or demand a fair wage for their hard work.

Dark Prince:

> The idea that the rich are wealthy because of hard work is true, but it's the hard work of the employees that has made them wealthy rather than their own hard work alone.

The rich do work hard at one thing: their golf swing!

Of course, it takes hard to work to keep one's mistresses happy. I am sure marrying playboy bunnies is hard work too.

Übergeek 바둑이: They can afford to work on their golf swing. They employ 100s of people who otherwise might not have a job were it not for that rich person who took risks and started a business.

I know people who work for such rich bosses. They make a decent living wage plus benefits. I know at least one multi millionaire who started a trucking business here, and a landscaping business, and a coffee shop. He employs over 50 people. He doesn't golf. He does take frequent trips to Honduras and uses his money to help build churches and homes and wells.

You have stereotyped people with money, lumped them all into the same pot, made a caricature of them, and then made fun of the invention in your small mind.

It’s a den of thieves!

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

You've no doubt seen the videos where members of OWS or other 'Occupy' groups spew their hate filled speech at various groups or how, when the right cameras are on they are talking about "love, peace, harmony and everyone getting along and sharing" and all that nonsense. Here's more behind the scenes reality for you.

OWS has a finance committee which has raised more than $500,000 in donations but they aren't sharing. Bryan Smith, an L.A. based TV producer, joined the OWS movement 3 weeks ago. He organized the Comfort Working Group described as a small collective charged with finding out what basic necessities participants need and then raising money to provide those things; like thermal underwear or soap. Bryan said they stood on the street and raised about $2000; he used $650 to buy and distribute necessities and gave the rest to the finance committee. But when it turned out he needed more necessities, finance refused to give him any money. Then he was told he had to fill out some paperwork and his request would be 'considered.' Ha ha! He's not alone in his experience and now a large group of protesters are asking the Feds to jump in and audit the group's books.

Stacy Hessler is a mom of 4 from Florida. She just knew that she had to be part of the OWS movement and is married to a banker but 'knows' the system is broken because of her marriage. She left her 4 kids and said she would stay with the movement to the end, hoping to see her kids around the holidays but if not, no big deal. So who is taking care of her kids? She put out a plea on Facebook to her 'support group' and circle of friends, some of whom she only knows from FB and has never met according to reports; she believes they are taking care of her kids.

From the 'love everyone' rhetoric to the reality; more and more OWS participants are complaining that their stuff is being stolen from their tents. This was supposed to be another one of those "love and trust everyone" moments that proved we can all get along just fine with one another. But more and more OWSers are complaining that their iPhones, iPads, cash, personal property and even some musical instruments. One of the 30 or so 'cooperatives' that have sprung up to give some organization to the group had a problem with the drum circle that had sprung up; protesters began to get tired of the group because they drummed incessantly all day long as one OWS member complained so the Community Board decided to place limits on the circle dictating how long they could play; when they could play and how loud they could play; isn't that in direct conflict with OWS's stated goals of freedom? Now someone has stolen the groups' drums. Man you just can't trust the hippies these days.

Artful Dodger:
I'm glad no one else is stereotyping anyone.
I'm certainly pleased the republicans avoid doing so.
Of course there are good employers that care about their employees and pay them according to the work they do. No need to stereotype employers by saying they all do that. It is they who do not that OWS is upset about and the political climate in which policies encourage unfair exploitation of workers and markets.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.
Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

Artful Dodger:
Fortunately, calling protesters "losers and hypocrites" is neither hateful speech nor stereotyping them.
No one that I'm aware of has claimed that all workers are good or that all employers are bad. Everyone whether they are executives of corporations, workers, retirees and all others are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable. The issue is that those responsible for creating the increasing income and wealth disparity have not been held accountable and we reasonably expect that they should be.

ohoh, OWS is now a failed enterprise. The "folks" have turned against the movement. 63% of Americans do NOT support the OWS movement. There is no place for it to go except down the toilet where it belongs.

Too mountainous...not practical...LOL

Artful Dodger:

> They can afford to work on their golf swing.

Of course, you realize I am being silly. I am sure the rich do more than work on their golf swing. Some work on their tennis forehand too!

> They employ 100s of people who otherwise might not have a job were it not for that
> rich person who took risks and started a business.

Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it.

> I know people who work for such rich bosses. They make a decent living wage plus
> benefits. I know at least one multi millionaire who started a trucking business here,
> and a landscaping business, and a coffee shop. He employs over 50 people. He
> doesn't golf. He does take frequent trips to Honduras and uses his money to help
> build churches and homes and wells.

I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are.

Many poor people work very hard. They take care of their families, help others, do what is right, etc. Some poor people fall through the cracks. They fall into crime, drugs, and other terrible things. There are good and bad people among the poor.

Likewise, there are good and bad people among the rich. Some create jobs, help others with their money, take care of their families and do good things for their community.

Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc.

We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks.

Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide.

> You have stereotyped people with money, lumped them all into the same pot, made a
> caricature of them, and then made fun of the invention in your small mind.

The truth is that both views are caricature. The rich penny-pincher miser who cares only about profit and has no regard for other is a caricature. So is the godly rich man who opens his purse and showers the poor with money.

Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist.

Of course, this is an extreme example. The point is, the rich do good sometimes, and they do terrible things for money too. Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world. Capitalists don't like to admit it because admitting wrongdoing implies that something has to be done to fix things. It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong.

and again today, because of "money-mad" hypocrites "our national life is on every side distinctly poorer, uglier, meaner, for the kind of influence he exercises..."
Ida Tarbell
"He," then Rockefeller and now the so called job creators (and their lobbyists and bought politicians) that crush competition, bust unions and depress wages would have us believe that a free market unfettered by regulation is the answer to the crisis instead of the very cause of it.

Übergeek 바둑이: You may joke about the rich playing golf but one has to wonder why, when trying to make a serious point, you resort to a sarcastic remark. The middle class play tennis too. So what? It's a meaningless statement and doesn't advance the discussion.

"Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it."

Some. so what? How exactly does the "some" have any significance when discussing the whole?

"I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are."

This is not the narrative that is being pushed. The narrative is that all rich people should pay more, give more, because they "owe it to society." Meanwhile, what about those that have less? Shouldn't they do more too (as opposed to contributing nothing except to act as leeches sucking off the benefits of the hard work of others)

"Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc."

That's not news to anyone. It's these people who need to be opposed, not the rich as a class of people.

"We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks."

So we applaud Bill Gates and put the Madoffs in jail. It works that way with all classes, or should.

"Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide."

Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left.

"Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist."

Rockefeller is an exceptional case. And he is not an example to apply to the whole. It's cherry picking. You can come up with bad examples, I can come up with good. So what? How do any of these example apply to the bigger question?

"Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world."

Wrong. Capitalism hase brought more prosperity to the world than any other system. People who have exploited the system have done harm. But you have far more harm being done in a communist system than in capitalism.

" It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong."

This can be said of any system. Again, people doing evil things. But for you as an atheist, isn't it difficult for you to justify the standard you are demanding? On what basis do you say a man can't exploit the weakness of others? Who says? Society? The world? By what authority do they say that? At the point of the gun? Then it boils down to who has the biggest gun. If there is no objective right or wrong, only a subjective one, then morals and ethics are up for grabs. Who says what Rockefeller did was wrong? YOu?? Who are you to make that claim? Why is it wrong to support a cause you beieve in? Who determines the value of any cause? Is exploiting the poor wrong just because you don't like it or is there a higher value at play? If so, what is it?

Artful Dodger:
Politics (Artful Dodger, 2011-10-31 06:01:32)
Who established the rule that humor or sarcasm is inappropriate when a serious issue is being discussed or debated?

Artful Dodger:

> Wrong. Capitalism hase brought more prosperity to the world than any other system.
> People who have exploited the system have done harm. But you have far more harm
> being done in a communist system than in capitalism.

Last thing I heard is that 2/3 of the population under capitalism live in poverty. After all, most capitalist countries are "developing". Before making the claim that capitalism has brought prosperity, one must make sure that by capitalism one does not refer to just the wealthy industrialized nations, but also to the poor, developing nations in which masses of people live in poverty. Yes, most African, Asian and Latin American countries are capitalist, and they are poor, not because of socialism, but because capitalism has helped spread inequality, exploitation and corruption. Just remember, just because you are North American middle class person it does not mean that everybody under capitalism lives like you do. 2/3 of the people under capitalism live in poverty. Hardly the "prosperity" of billionaires and bankers.


> This can be said of any system. Again, people doing evil things. But for you as an
> atheist, isn't it difficult for you to justify the standard you are demanding?

What are you saying? Atheists have no sense of right and wrong? Are you assuming that only "God-fearing" people know the difference between right and wrong? Do you really think good and evil come only from God? That assumption presumes that God exists, but what happens if God does not exist? Does it mean that "anything" is allowed? If the only reason you have for being a good person is fear of God, then yours is a God that rules by fear. It is presumptious to assume that only the Christian God can give a sense of good and evil. If that were the case Christians would never do anything evil. I never saw God punish anyone, and I never met anyone who died and came back. The day that happens I will believe that God is the source of good and evil. But then fear of God dictates that it will be too late for me. So a circular logic takes place. I must live in fear of something that I can never prove whether it is true or not. So an atheist refuses faith, and the sense of right and wrong comes from a priori assumptions. For example, it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to exploit others, etc. Do not asume that atheist are intrinsically evil. Some of the best people I have met in my life were atheists. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with being good or bad.

> On what basis do you say a man can't exploit the weakness of others? Who says? Society? The world? By what authority do they say that? At the point of the gun? Then it boils down to who has the biggest gun. If there is no objective right or wrong, only a subjective one, then morals and ethics are up for grabs.

This is a matter of belief. A person can believe that it is OK to kill for money. That does not make it right. Everybody has a sense of right and wrong. If exploiting others is right, then do not feel bad when somebody comes and exploits you or your family. If it is OK for somebody to profit by using others, then it is OK for everybody to do the same. It is the final conclusion of the existentialist ethic. My actions make a statement about the whole world. If it is OK to be selfish for one person, then it is OK to be selfish for everybody.

> Who says what Rockefeller did was wrong? YOu?? Who are you to make that
> claim? Why is it wrong to support a cause you beieve in? Who determines the value
> of any cause? Is exploiting the poor wrong just because you don't like it or is there a
> higher value at play? If so, what is it?

Who says? Well, you can ask 6 million Jews and 8 million gypsies that died in the Holocaust. If ANY cause is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with the Nazis.

Why is exploitation wrong? Because it goes against the one principle that nobody can deny: human beings are equal. How so? All human beings start out the same way: babies born naked and screaming. Nobody is born rich or poor. Parents might be rich or poor, but all babies are born with nothing. People are made rich or poor by the social structure they live under. If the social system allows an individual to use others for profit, then a social hierarchy arises in which some become very wealthy and many others become poor. The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair wage for their labour. If wages were perfectly fair, nobody could make a profit. But the extraction of plusvalue from other people's wages is what makes profits possible. If a social system allows poverty to occur, it has consequences such as poor housing, poor health care, poor education, etc. Then human beings suffer, and that is the ultimate consequence of exploitation. Now, if human suffering is OK, then the likes of predatory capitalists and nazis are acceptable. If human suffering is wrong, then those individuals are not acceptable.

As human beings we must make a choice, and indeed we do through our actions. Our ideology is nothing but empty words. It is only through actions that we ultimately display our true sense of right and wrong.

Artful Dodger:
"Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left."

That's precisely what is being advocated. It isn't restricted to "evil people" though. A political climate that allows and even encourages lowering wages and restricting worker rights while rewarding the largest corporations leads to these unethical behaviors with little if any accountability.
Demanding that the wealthiest pay their fair share in a progressive tax system is NOT class warfare. Suppressing the workers and removing their rights to negotiate is class warfare.
Corporations should exist and their executives paid for the betterment of society rather than just for themselves.
Otherwise, those corporations must be dismantled and their executives punished.
Make no mistake, that is not a statement to suggest that corporations are bad. Additionally, no corporation should be permitted to become so large that its failure creates the upheaval that we have witnessed recently.
They should not be allowed to employ predatory practices that eliminate competition and bury local small businesses.
Legislating effective regulations with the power to enforce them is the way to stop this rape of the greatest resource of the economy--the working class.

Übergeek 바둑이:
"The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair wage for their labour. If wages were perfectly fair, nobody could make a profit. But the extraction of plusvalue from other people's wages is what makes profits possible."

Actually, profits and wealth can be measured in other ways. All can profit either equally or unequally. Money itself is only a unit of exchange giving relative value to a wide variety of goods and services.
Forgetting about the monetary value of goods and services for a moment, a group of people may utilize a division of labor in which some build, others farm or hunt and others maintain the families and education while all in the group benefit and advance as a society.
Society is not initially built on a system of competition demanding winners and losers. The winners and losers approach is artificial and, when taken to the extreme, detrimental.
Money itself does not create this extreme. Corporations can profit while paying its employees sufficient wages for them to do well and accumulate property and or savings.

Übergeek 바둑이:

There are a lot of factors that lead to poverty. Capitalism leads to prosperity. Where has there been a system that has brought prosperity to so many? I'd like to know what you'd replace the system with.

And whenever we speak of capitalism, I speak of it as it relates to the US. I don't care about the rest of the world. It's good for the US and that's the context of this discussion. If you want to drag in developing countries, talk to someone else about that. I have no interest in that discussion.

When you speak of equality, you don't mean middle class equality. What you mean is poor equality. And 2/3 of the people in the US are not living in poverty. Show me the stats. BTW, it's true that you can be considered poor even though you own a house, and have more than one TV, and other expensive gadgets. That's laughable.

I"m saying that atheists have no basis for right and wrong.

Who says it's wrong to kill? On what basis?

Who says it's wrong to exploit the weak? Tough crap on them. Why are humans subject to such a rule but the animal kingdom lives by exploiting the weakness of others.

"This is a matter of belief. A person can believe that it is OK to kill for money. That does not make it right. Everybody has a sense of right and wrong. If exploiting others is right, then do not feel bad when somebody comes and exploits you or your family. If it is OK for somebody to profit by using others, then it is OK for everybody to do the same. It is the final conclusion of the existentialist ethic. My actions make a statement about the whole world. If it is OK to be selfish for one person, then it is OK to be selfish for everybody."

On what basis is any of this true? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong? You? How can you hold me to that standard apart from threat of violence? Is it objectively wrong or is that just an opinion that most have agreed to? And if in time, society decides it's OK to kill babies for fun, then is that act still wrong in your view? How so? Based on what?

"Who says? Well, you can ask 6 million Jews and 8 million gypsies that died in the Holocaust. If ANY cause is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with the Nazis."

This is exactly the argument I am making. If there is an actual wrong here, who decides? Why couldn't the Nazis decide that for their culture, killing Jews is just fine?

"Why is exploitation wrong? Because it goes against the one principle that nobody can deny: human beings are equal."

This principle? Who made this principle? Who says people are equal? In the animal kingdom, if I'm stronger, you're toast. Sad for you but you get to die. So what separates us as human beings? How do the godless justify principles? Based on what???

"The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair wage for their labor."

This is a false statement.

"If wages were perfectly fair, nobody could make a profit."

You must have failed economics. If there were no profits, there'd be no business expansion. You couldn't restock the shelves. You couldn't keep up the store or save to open a second one.

You have a very simplistic view of how an economic system works.

"Our ideology is nothing but empty words. It is only through actions that we ultimately display our true sense of right and wrong."

Again with your "right and wrong." Why should I care what you think about right and wrong? What if my view differs and I want you to see my view of right and wrong? Why should I accept what you say as an objective fact?
Reply (box)

How many people were poor in 2010?

In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.


You can't count developing countries since they are developing. What was their poverty rate before capitalism? How long have they used a capitalist system? What are the other factors leading to poverty? on and on and on.

And here's a news flash for you libs: Unwed childbearing is the major cause of child poverty in America. That's a statistical FACT.

Artful Dodger:

> And whenever we speak of capitalism, I speak of it as it relates to the US. I don't
> care about the rest of the world. It's good for the US and that's the context of this
> discussion. If you want to drag in developing countries, talk to someone else about
> that. I have no interest in that discussion.

Not to drag developing countries into the discussion? It is only about the USA? How many American companies operate in developing countries? How much profit do they make there? If developing coutnries have NOTHING to do with capitalism, then why is the USA doing business there?

What is your behaviour then if not selfish hogwash? "Who cares about the rest of the world?" It is so easy to say capitalism is great if all that you look at are the rich and the comfortable middle class. Yes, capitalism brought prosperity to CEOs, but what about their employees in the developing world? Don't they count in your mind or are you so selfish that all you care about is your own little world?

> Who says it's wrong to exploit the weak? Tough crap on them. Why are humans
> subject to such a rule but the animal kingdom lives by exploiting the weakness of
> others.

Are you a social Darwinist then? Because that is what social Darwinism is. If you believe that the strongest humans should rule, you are a social Darwinist and that is the what drove the Nazi mentality.

> On what basis is any of this true? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong?
> You? How can you hold me to that standard apart from threat of violence? Is it
> objectively wrong or is that just an opinion that most have agreed to? And if in time,
> society decides it's OK to kill babies for fun, then is that act still wrong in your view?
> How so? Based on what?

Like a said in my previous post, many statements about what is right and wrong are made "a priori", meaning without no basis other than the statement itself. The decision to accept an act as right or wrong is a personal decision. What society says and what an individual does are two different things. If I say it is wrong to kill and exploit others, it is my personal choice and something I believe not based on some socially agreed standard.

If you say that the threat of violence is the only thing that stops people from being bad, then give me a reason why it is wrong for Al Qaeda to attack the USA, just because the USA will bomb them and kill them? Why should Iran give up its nuclear program, because the USA will bomb the country? And what is another country threatens to bomb the USA if it bombs Iran? Is the escalation of violence acceptable just because violence is the ONLY way to decide what is right and wrong?

> This is exactly the argument I am making. If there is an actual wrong here, who
> decides? Why couldn't the Nazis decide that for their culture, killing Jews is just fine?

Well, then why is ANYTHING wrong? I make this "a priori" statement: it is wrong to kill someone because of their race. You can choose to believe it or not. It is your INDIVIDUAL choice, and you are responsible for that choice. Whether your choice has consequences for you or not is a different problem. If a Nazi killed, escaped and never faced justice, that does not make his choice right. Since people do wrong things and more often than not they don't face justice, we have invented a "spiritual" deterrent. We say that "God" will punish the wicked. However, in Atheism there is no such luxury, and the choice of right and wrong becomes an individual process. Punishment for Atheists might be inadequate when the evil escape, but then those who believe in God have nothing but faith to go on. Without faith there is no God, and without God there is no punishment. For atheists the only punishment is that which human beings bring upon one another. So atheists reduce right and wrong to an individual choice, rather than some higher religous principle.

> This principle? Who made this principle? Who says people are equal? In the animal
> kingdom, if I'm stronger, you're toast. Sad for you but you get to die. So what
> separates us as human beings? How do the godless justify principles? Based on
> what???

If somebody is strong and can inflict force upon others, that does nto make that person superior, it merely makes them violent and aggressive, but not better. Superiority has nothing to do with strength or the ability to inflict violence. There is no such thing as superior or inferior in nature. The category of superiority exists only in the human mind. A big lion eating a tiny gazelle is not an example of the lion's superiority. It is merely a reflection of the lion's need to survive. The lion does not think to itself: "I am superior and I can kill as many gazelles as I want". The lion merely responds to its instinct to eat, to reproduce, to secure the survival of its species. That is Darwinism in action.

Social Darwinists apply the same idea to social systems. The strongest man defeats its competitors, and it is OK for that man to do so by whatever means are necessary. But the equality of human beings is not based merely on some abstract idea in the human mind. It is based on science. All human beings are made of the same basic elements: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen. There is no such thing as superior oxygen or superior carbon. Neither are there superior proteins or inferior proteins, or superior DNA or inferior DNA. The molecules that make up a human being have no superiority or inferiority.

Then all human beings are born the same: helpless babies. There is no such thing as a superior or inferior baby. The categorization of superirity is imposed by the mind, not by nature. Then we say: this man is taller, or this man is stronger, or this man is smarter. However, nature has the ultimate equalizer: death. Everybody dies, and it does nto matter how strong or how smart or how rich or how poor you are. Death makes all human beings exaclty equal. You can die of cancer, or be murdered, or die in a tornado; but death is death plain and simple, and it makes everybody equal. For all of his superiority hogwash, Hitler was ultimate the same as everybody else and he died like everybody else dies.

So based on science and empirical observation one can prove that there is no such thing as superior or inferior human beings. Superiority is merely an abstract category in the human mind.

> "The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair
> wage for their labor."

> This is a false statement.

How so? A perfectly fair wage would mean that a person extracts 100% of the value of their labor. Not 99% for me and 1% for my boss, but 100% exactly. The only way my boss can extract a profit is if he takes the value of my labour, pays me a fraction, and keeps some for himself. The lower the fraction of my labour that is paid to me, the greater the profit that my boss makes.

Notice that I am talking about a perfect system in which it is possible for a person to extract 1005 of the value of their labour. In the real world it does not happen that way. A person can have a "good" salary, meaning that the fraction of the labour they receive is adequate to their expectations, in spite of their boss retaining a fraction for himself. That is what we call a "good company to work for". The employer pays a salary that allows the person to have a good life. That still does not make the salary perfectly fair. Companies are constatly looking for ways to lower the salaries paid to employees, so as to maximize profits. It is why they move production to other countries where labour is "cheaper", meaning that the employer can keep a higher proportion of the fair wage that should be paid to employees.

> You must have failed economics. If there were no profits, there'd be no business
> expansion. You couldn't restock the shelves. You couldn't keep up the store or save
> to open a second one.
> You have a very simplistic view of how an economic system works.

Far from simplistic. If anything, it explains how a CEO can give himself a $50 million bonus, while a whole bunch of employees in the third world get $1 per day. Capitalism requires a constant expansion of profits to ensure that a company has a constant increase in capital expansion. The only way to do that is by reducing production costs as much as possible, and the biggest expense in any company is usually the salaries paid to employees. The lower the salaries, the bigger the profits. It comes as no surprise that jobs have been exported out of rich industrialized nations and sent overseas.

> Again with your "right and wrong." Why should I care what you think about right and
> wrong? What if my view differs and I want you to see my view of right and wrong?
> Why should I accept what you say as an objective fact?

It is your personal choice. What you believe is meaningless until you act on it. If you believe that something is right or wrong, it can only be proven through your actions. You are under no obligation to believe what anybody else says. I have my views, you have yours. I can try to make my point across. Whether you accept it or not it is your own choice. I am well aware that you and I will never agree on 99% of anything. Why bother arguing then? Why should you even reply to any post knowing that people will not agree with you?

California is a perfect example of a socialist state. And they are out of money. Margaret was right.