Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea, but what is the correlation to our president "loving and adoring" him?
And - keep in mind - the decorations for the tree come from all over the country, mostly students, and the president has nothing to do with any of it. I think it's dumb to put his picture on there if that did happen, but has nothing to do with the OP's accusation.
I didn't say that specifically, but things do seem odd. Why would you allow such an atrocity to be on a tree which is for festive celebration? As for Obama supporting such, wasn't one of his old acquaintances from college in the news a while back saying that Obama tended to be very supportive of Marxist writings? (I don't know if this was confirmed or not)
Marx, Mao, Stalin, and even Hitler shared many of the same principals in their approach to government. Lots of youth and confused adults have a tendency to idolize Marx without having fully understood the position to which Marx and Engle held, nor their various positions on population, race, etc...
If one looks at Obama's many comments over the years concerning the Constitution, government involvement concerning it, and so on... combined with the the above I mentioned, well... it is not an unreasonable position to have some confusion in all of their relation.
It was originally reported on the above, Fox apparently followed up and asked the WH to which they stated they were unaware of such and claimed local community groups provided the decorations.
Also, I believe Anita Dunn publicly mentioned her great admiration for Mao and Mother Theresa as her favorite political philosophers as well.
The point is, all of this is a bit odd, and doesn't sit well. There are many youth out there and public figures who idolize these destructive figures and seeing it show up in the WH and the various comments made by officials within it as well as the history of Obama's comments and mentions of his past interests, it is a difficult position to simply "wave off".
A common problem with those who support these figures is that they seem to ignore the severity of their actions. These are not figures to which we respect, call our favorite, and decorate with. These are not ideals to which we favor or look to for solutions. They have been shown to be every bit the brutal, racist, hateful and violent figures they are and it is not unreasonable for people to question when such is displayed, especially when it appears in our government. In fact, when it does, it is very disturbing.
What amounts to free labor via physical and legal coercion will tend to make things more "efficient", I don't even see how that's up to debate.
If you think having that is okay in any market system I don't see how you're even worth debating since you clearly wipe human rights with your ass.
And they're not a "business", they are property. They are as much a "business" as your house or a piece of machinery. If you want to compare the rights of your house to a human being you're welcome to though.
Hold on, I gotta whip my house because it's getting mouthy.
I mean we could postulate on what the first half of the 19th century would have been like if there was no slavery but that's not how it was. I mean if I could **** gold I'd be rich, that's not really a topic worth discussing because it's in fantasy land.
Please stop with the fallacious attacks. You are assumptive in your claims to present false summaries to dismiss.
I simply am confused by your attempt to relate the two. Free markets are essentially an aspect of not having government control it and regulate it.
Slavery in terms of a business, is simply a mechanism that effects its efficiency, but it has nothing to do with the free markets system. We do not measure free market systems by their efficiency. That is, if a business is inefficient, it is not a direct component to which defines it being in a free market or not.
Your attempt to turn this into a racism issue is disingenuous and ignorant of the purpose of this discussion. Our topic of discussion is not about the morality of slavery, it is simply about the free market system.
You make the claim that the success of a free market system as is noted by the poster you were discussing with is simply a result of slavery and I asked you to explain how efficiency alone (using the slaves) is representative of such.
Turn it the other way. Has the removal of slavery helped government control be more of a success than free trade? Why? What effect has that had in the success of business? From a simple perspective, does not bureaucracy slow business process and hamper its ability to make timely decisions? What examples can you use to show how increased bureaucracy through regulation has contributed to the success of business?
The problem here is you are mixing concepts and confusing the issue. I am honestly trying to discuss with you here and you have been getting very defensive and accusatory.
Either respond like an intelligent adult and stop with all of the fallacious attacks of character or I will have to place you on ignore due to the fact that you are unable to properly delineate not only the concepts you confuse, but your emotional position as it concerns proper discussion.
So summers says free markets only work when there's a rule of law stopping governments from violating human rights, then uses America in the 1800s as a good example of a successful free market economy. If you don't understand why this is a poor line of argumentation, you need to bulk up American history. I suggest you start by looking up "robber baron," "the gilded age," "The Panic of 1893," and "trust-busting".
Teddy Roosevelt went nuts on trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century for a reason, folks.
And the examples you give have nothing to do with the violation of human rights.
Wages, adjusted for inflation, grew more in the U.S. between 1865 and 1900 than at any time in history. Then Teddy Roosevelt became president, we got unions and more and more federal government in the economy.
Robber barons. LOLs. Okay. That happened.
And trusts-busting? Standard Oil was a monopoly for a while. But it was already losing market share when TR became president. Other than we have nevr had one. Except for pro sports. And they need govt help to get away with that.
Please stop with the fallacious attacks. You are assumptive in your claims to present false summaries to dismiss.
I simply am confused by your attempt to relate the two. Free markets are essentially an aspect of not having government control it and regulate it.
Slavery in terms of a business, is simply a mechanism that effects its efficiency, but it has nothing to do with the free markets system. We do not measure free market systems by their efficiency. That is, if a business is inefficient, it is not a direct component to which defines it being in a free market or not.
Your attempt to turn this into a racism issue is disingenuous and ignorant of the purpose of this discussion. Our topic of discussion is not about the morality of slavery, it is simply about the free market system.
You make the claim that the success of a free market system as is noted by the poster you were discussing with is simply a result of slavery and I asked you to explain how efficiency alone (using the slaves) is representative of such.
Turn it the other way. Has the removal of slavery helped government control be more of a success than free trade? Why? What effect has that had in the success of business? From a simple perspective, does not bureaucracy slow business process and hamper its ability to make timely decisions? What examples can you use to show how increased bureaucracy through regulation has contributed to the success of business?
The problem here is you are mixing concepts and confusing the issue. I am honestly trying to discuss with you here and you have been getting very defensive and accusatory.
Either respond like an intelligent adult and stop with all of the fallacious attacks of character or I will have to place you on ignore due to the fact that you are unable to properly delineate not only the concepts you confuse, but your emotional position as it concerns proper discussion.
The free market doesn't go to war. Governments do.
The free market is only what governments allow it to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
