Well Obama got the nobel peace prize.

[24valvenotak]

Trafik Jamz;291169 wrote:
No, no, no Mitch....all this award proves is that Obama (and the country he represents) are a bunch of pussies that will back down from every challenge thrown their way and will achieve peace at the expense of every single civil liberty that you and I hold dear. Hasn't Fox news taught you anything?

oh yea, i forgot that being a socialist joker is waay worse then an uneducated coke face who wiped his ass with our civil liberties. i hope glen beck can forgive me. if i were unemployed and dropped out of school i could have payed more attention to the greatest media outlet the world has ever known. my bad. my bad.

The Glenn Beck Program - The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment riiiiight.

[thrash]

I do not recognize the right of the rest of the world to pass judgement on the United States; it's sanction is irrelevant.

Bush, for all his faults, to the extent he was able to wrap his head around the problem of 9/11, put America first, and anyone that thought his job was anything besides that doesn't understand Americans or America's unique role in world politics. The GWB whitehouse view might be thought of as "when Europe outsourced its securty needs to the US 60 years ago, it lost a lot of its management oversight in how the world gets run, and right now we have a mess to take care of. People that aren't interested in helping simply do not matter and will get fucking steamrolled if that's what it takes."

Stratfor has a pretty interesting analysis of the reactions of Europeans to American policy and presidents in the post WW2 timeframe.

The short version is: Western Europeans tend to like American presidents that don't rock the boat, and give Europe "veto power" over US foreign policy. The reason for this is that Europe stands to lose big in any blowback over US foreign policy disasters. Every cold-war scenario involved all of europe turning into a glass bowl, and Europe had no real say in the matter.

[amicheze]

Copypaste

"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.

He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That's fine."

[24valvenotak]

thrash;291344 wrote:
I do not recognize the right of the rest of the world to pass judgement on the United States; it's sanction is irrelevant.

really? seriously?

[thrash]

Absolutely. Why would I?

I absolutely beleive in American exceptionalism. This is the only nation or political entity, I beleive in the history of time, that has formed its government on the sole premise of limiting the power of government to impugn on the intrinsic rights of its individual citizens.

That's important. Everyone else in the whole world is a subject. Americans are citizens. We rule ourselves, and we (and only we) retain the same force and authority as individuals that in all other nations have been delegated and reserved only for governors: individual Americans retain their natural-born right to retain the instruments of murder, destruction, and warfare, because ultimately it is only by these means that a man born free can long retain his freedom. Everywhere (here included), are men who fancy themselves your betters and would love nothing more than to make you their slaves.

Free for the sake of being free; that is the basis of American exceptionalism.

I don't rally against us going into pointless wars because I care about other countries. Other countries and other places do not meet the high bar set in our foundational documents [neither do we, lately sigh]. Some of these other places are nice to visit; none of them beleive an individual owns herself. All position the ruling class ahead of the individual.

If we go to war with Iran and I say I'm against it, it's not because I am super upset about the idea of us blowing up Iranians: to the extent that we have an open immigration policy [we don't any more, but I'd repair that], people choosing to stay in Iran have made their bed and can lie in it. Who would choose to live in a country that executes women who have "the nerve" to get raped? Should I shed a tear if we get into some kind of conflict with that government, culture, society, etc, and some of them get knocked off?

No, what would give me pause about going to war with Iran is the cost to us, in lives, dollars, and our sense of self respect. Is whatever issue we might have with them worth a single of our dollars or of our lives?

My idea of an America is the bully that wasn't. The strength and fortitude to do as we see fit, the wisdom to do only what is necessary. Necessary by who's standards? The only standard that matters -- our own.

America should have a passing interest in the rest of the world thinks, but it's merely an appeal to our national vanity, not something that matters. We shouldn't be out to piss people off, but some people will get butt hurt no matter what. Not our problem, but when someone makes it our problem, we should be sure to give them reason to think a bit more carefully in the future.

[24valvenotak]

thrash;291418 wrote:
All position the ruling class ahead of the individual.

welcome to america.

[DaveH]

24valvenotak;291426 wrote:
welcome to america.

That does seem to be the direction we are heading, the ruling class (government) seemingly wants to take over, or at least be involved in, every little day to day item in our lives. Our day to day lives are not THEIR responsibility, it is OURS.

[24valvenotak]

DaveH;291427 wrote:
That does seem to be the direction we are heading, the ruling class (government) seemingly wants to take over, or at least be involved in, every little day to day item in our lives. Our day to day lives are not THEIR responsibility, it is OURS.
the ruling class is big business. they have been in power since the 50s but more dramatically the 90s and now.

try as the they might (govt) corporations dictate your day to day.

[thrash]

24valvenotak;291440 wrote:
the ruling class is big business. they have been in power since the 50s but more dramatically the 90s and now.

try as the they might (govt) corporations dictate your day to day.

you fail so hard.

"big business", as it were, could not control anyone or anything because as far as i know, its still illegal for a business to break into your house, put a gun to your head, or steal money from you. To do these things, one needs the help of government.

Big Business isn't stupid: they certainly want to control you, but the entity that they collude with to do this is where the problem really lies: an overbearing government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds.

"Big Business" and Government put the nails in the coffin in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System and legal tender laws. The wink-wink agreement was that private banks got to control the money, as long as they would make more anytime uncle sam needed some. Everyone else has lost, ever since.

In the Soviet Union there was no "big business". There was still violence, corruption, murder, graft, and the people's lives were still controlled.

The key is government. It's the entity that is always on the other side of the gun.

[Trafik Jamz]

Not disagreeing with you just too much here thrash, you are right in that gov't should stay the fuck out of our lives (generally speaking).

As for big business not controlling our lives, I'd say they do to a pretty large extent. If I want to start a store to compete with Walmart/Target/Kmart how could I possibly do it? For one I would need HUUUUUUGE capitol/investor money and second I need to be able to order at the same quantities as them to be competitive. How is a single store proprietor/start up business supposed to be able to "make it" in that environment? Short answer: You can't. Not at their level anyway. Same goes for insurance companies. It's not extremely hard to get your company licensed to do business in ND. There are tons of supplemental companies here already (Conseco, Combined, AFLAC, American Heritage, etc....) but nobody is really applying to be a major medical provider here because BC/BS makes it virtually impossible to do so by offering HUGE discounts to schools/large businesses/etc... at below their cost of insurance. So what they do is pick up the large accounts at a loss and then pass that loss on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. By doing that they add a ton of people to their risk pool (making it slightly cheaper to do business) AND make it hard for anyone else to come in and do the same thing. Without the large accounts, it becomes extremely hard in a state the size of ND to pick up the smaller customers because you don't have the large businesses to spread the risk. IOW, it isn't worth it to another company to come in here. It's not like major medical insurance companies are knocking down the doors to do business in ND.

The point to all this griping is that these are effective businesses that don't and won't have a true competitor which is bad for the general public and local economy (less so w/ BCBS than walmart as BCBS employees at least have adequate pay and good benefits).

I personally have less problem w/ gov't regulating businesses (not controlling, but setting some guidelines/rules) than I do with them getting involved in my private life. In my opinion, small businesses built this country and big (huge) businesses are ruining it.

[PSiedTSi]

Trafik Jamz;291501 wrote:
In my opinion, small businesses built this country and big (huge) businesses are ruining it.

Bingo. We benefit from corporations, but would benefit from a large network of smaller businesses working together. Sort of like the DHL model, although that might be a bad example because that obviously didn't work too well.

[24valvenotak]

This post is deleted!

[24valvenotak]

thrash;291471 wrote:
you fail so hard.

"big business", as it were, could not control anyone or anything because as far as i know, its still illegal for a business to break into your house, put a gun to your head, or steal money from you. To do these things, one needs the help of government.

i need the help of the govt to break into your house, steal your money, or put a gun to your head?

what department do i call and who do i speak to for help in these matters? are you saying that oj contacted his local rep and had help driving the bronco?

thats my whole damn point! big business OWNS the govt. the govt caters to them in every single way imaginable.

by extension, big business owns you.

[24valvenotak]

PSiedTSi;291505 wrote:
Bingo. We benefit from corporations, but would benefit from a large network of smaller businesses working together. Sort of like the DHL model, although that might be a bad example because that obviously didn't work too well.

double posting jewb, as it were

a network of small business would be great if the vast majority of people had any sort of moral code...

[thrash]

Trafik Jamz;291501 wrote:
Not disagreeing with you just too much here thrash, you are right in that gov't should stay the fuck out of our lives (generally speaking).

As for big business not controlling our lives, I'd say they do to a pretty large extent.

Controlling your life means THEM having the final say in what you can and cannot do.

If I want to start a store to compete with Walmart/Target/Kmart how could I possibly do it?

Nothing stops you from starting the store except your own fear of failure and lack of money. Or, in some cases, city governments that refuse to zone your land for big-box retail use, as they often do for Wal-Mart.

For one I would need HUUUUUUGE capitol/investor money and second I need to be able to order at the same quantities as them to be competitive. How is a single store proprietor/start up business supposed to be able to "make it" in that environment?

I don't understand. Are you saying that the existance of Wal-Mart makes starting any other kind of business or store impossible?

Short answer: You can't. Not at their level anyway.

Yes, it is true that some dude on the internet cannot create an entity that competes with wal-mart in a day. And it is also true that if you were to say to "I am going to create a world wide network of retail outlets and defeat wal-mart, starting with 1500 new stores!", everyone would want to laugh at you but not be sure if it was appropriate to laugh at someone with such an obvious mental handicap.

There are many retail stores of all different sizes that continue to flourish inspite of the fact that Wal-Mart exists.

You are complaining about the fact that if you tried to start a store, it might fail, and that might be because there are better and cheaper options for customers who might otherwise patronize you. Guess what: if you cannot figure out how to provide more value to people than wal-mart already does, you absolutely shouldn't be in business or expect to suceed at it. Note that i said "value", not "lower prices on chinese shit".

Same goes for insurance companies. It's not extremely hard to get your company licensed to do business in ND. There are tons of supplemental companies here already (Conseco, Combined, AFLAC, American Heritage, etc....) but nobody is really applying to be a major medical provider here because BC/BS makes it virtually impossible to do so by offering HUGE discounts to schools/large businesses/etc... at below their cost of insurance. So what they do is pick up the large accounts at a loss and then pass that loss on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. By doing that they add a ton of people to their risk pool (making it slightly cheaper to do business) AND make it hard for anyone else to come in and do the same thing. Without the large accounts, it becomes extremely hard in a state the size of ND to pick up the smaller customers because you don't have the large businesses to spread the risk. IOW, it isn't worth it to another company to come in here. It's not like major medical insurance companies are knocking down the doors to do business in ND.

Why is the client pool limited to just north dakota? State law.
Why is health insurance so commonly tied to employment? Federal law.

The point to all this griping is that these are effective businesses that don't and won't have a true competitor which is bad for the general public and local economy (less so w/ BCBS than walmart as BCBS employees at least have adequate pay and good benefits).

Needs Citation.

Large businesses get a bad-rap that is often undeserved. Standard Oil acquired his near-monopoly by being better and more efficient than the companies he bought out. He showed people how much cheaper he was going to run their business and offered to buy them out, usually at a handsome profit for the existing owners and often with a reduction of prices and/or increase in service/value for the end customers. That is exactly what is supposed to happen!

I can't beleive the cognitive dissonance people have towards wal-mart. They are the #1 employer in many small towns where the economy had crashed [even prior to wal-mart showing up], and they consistently put more goods and value into peoples hands for less money than other places. And Wal-Mart has probably done more to end child prostitution in Asia than any other organization in history. How? By giving people (including, occasionally, children) jobs and dumping american cash into the hands of people who, prior to western investment, have been living the same life of backbreaking agrarian labor or servitude that has been largely unchanged for 6000 fucking years.

I personally have less problem w/ gov't regulating businesses (not controlling, but setting some guidelines/rules) than I do with them getting involved in my private life. In my opinion, small businesses built this country and big (huge) businesses are ruining it.

What you don't understand is that business of any size doesn't have any COERCIVE power without government. I beleive that you have a right to start a business, to sell what you want, for the price you want. The government by and large doesn't. You need a license, you need to pay a ream of taxes, comply with piles of stupid laws and regulations, and if you're in a politically "fun" industry you cant set your prices too high or its gouging, and you can't set them too low if its dumping.

So I think you have a right to try to do whatever you like with your assets and your business. But the government says otherwise, and when it comes down to brass tacks, they'll just shoot you to make their point.

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, cannot do anything to you, except try and do a better job than you do. Guess who wins when they do a better job? Everybody. Yes, even you. When someone beats your ass in the market, you learn a valueable lesson: namely, that you should invest your capital and labor differently than you did last time. Business failure is critical to a market economy and acheving economic efficiency, and it is one of the reason we have such pro-business, pro-bankruptcy laws in this country: we set the rules to reward risk takers.

Here's the magic. "Big Business" cannot do a terrible job unless they have a captive audience.. an audience with no other options. How do you get a captive audience? How does a bad business absolutely guarantee competitors cannot succeed or exist?

Government. It's the only way, and it's always been the only way. Even in the middle ages when you had merchant guilds controlling everything -- those guilds were backed by the force of law.

I love wal-mart. I almost never shop there, but I love it.

[thrash]

24valvenotak;291508 wrote:
i need the help of the govt to break into your house, steal your money, or put a gun to your head?

what department do i call and who do i speak to for help in these matters? are you saying that oj contacted his local rep and had help driving the bronco?

you're being silly. When you break into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

When big business breaks into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

(Except when it doesn't) - like in the case of foreclosure law, or re-possesion law, or phone/gas/cable right-of-way laws, or any other number of crazy things where the government has said that you don't actually own your property, or you aren't actually free, etc etc.

thats my whole damn point! big business OWNS the govt. the govt caters to them in every single way imaginable.

by extension, big business owns you.

You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

[PSiedTSi]

thrash;291515 wrote:
You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

I think thats the most complete way you've said it so far. That pretty much sums it up. It IS the big business that controls the government, because we allow it to happen, by giving the government power to do it. I think we are all pretty much saying the same thing, just different ways?

I heard this question posed while listening to Vince Flynn on the radio today: What is the best way for an American to be heard and help to make a change? I think a lot of us realize something needs to be done, but we just sit and spin our wheels not really knowing how to actually initiate/help the change that is necessary. Our **one **vote every 2 years isn't really enough to make a change. How does one actually start that revolution? We can sit here and debate all day long about whos right and whos wrong, but really it doesn't matter if none of us do anything about it...

[24valvenotak]

thrash;291515 wrote:
you're being silly. When you break into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

When big business breaks into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

(Except when it doesn't) - like in the case of foreclosure law, or re-possesion law, or phone/gas/cable right-of-way laws, or any other number of crazy things where the government has said that you don't actually own your property, or you aren't actually free, etc etc.

You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

edit. i give up. everyone vote thrash for president on the platform of zero govt.

[Grr]

24valvenotak;291527 wrote:
edit. i give up. everyone vote thrash for president on the platform of zero govt.

honestly thats the smartest thing ive seen you post in the last 2 months

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;291510 wrote:
Controlling your life means THEM having the final say in what you can and cannot do.

They don't have final say, but they do have a lot of influence on where many people buy things....especially the middle class and poor. The good is that they sell things incredibly cheap. The bad is they sell things so cheap that none of their competitors can even come close to competing.

Nothing stops you from starting the store except your own fear of failure and lack of money. Or, in some cases, city governments that refuse to zone your land for big-box retail use, as they often do for Wal-Mart.

Let's say I wanted to start a large store similar to walmart....selling similar products at similar prices. How would you suggest doing that? I'm talking ONE store, not a national chain. Just a single store that can sell Widget "A" for the same price as Walmart (For example, there are some brands of electronics that I can buy that I allegedly get the best price available....and Walmart sells for less than my cost.) No one cares about service anymore, so you really can't count that as the reason people will come to you. Price & Convenience are the only two real factors in business anymore. And if you can't compete on price, it really isn't all that convenient.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the existance of Wal-Mart makes starting any other kind of business or store impossible?

Name one independent grocery store in Fargo that is doing well, living the dream. Asian-American market is the only independent store I can even think of anymore, the rest compete only because they are part of a national distribution network.

Yes, it is true that some dude on the internet cannot create an entity that competes with wal-mart in a day. And it is also true that if you were to say to "I am going to create a world wide network of retail outlets and defeat wal-mart, starting with 1500 new stores!", everyone would want to laugh at you but not be sure if it was appropriate to laugh at someone with such an obvious mental handicap.

You are right, I can not start a store to compete with them in a day. But if I can not compete with them for even one day, how am I to exist long enough to compete with them ever?

There are many retail stores of all different sizes that continue to flourish inspite of the fact that Wal-Mart exists.

Yes, specialty shops will continue to do well, but they will seldom see the success that the large superstores see, they will scrape by. There are some companies that will never sell to Walmart, but if you wanted to develop into a super store (or even a grocery & low priced clothing store) you'd never ever be able to do it and survive against them. (Nash Finch and Super Value have a hell of a time staying in business with Walmart around)

You are complaining about the fact that if you tried to start a store, it might fail, and that might be because there are better and cheaper options for customers who might otherwise patronize you. Guess what: if you cannot figure out how to provide more value to people than wal-mart already does, you absolutely shouldn't be in business or expect to suceed at it. Note that i said "value", not "lower prices on chinese shit".

Since the advent of the internet, no one gives a shit about value (aka service). If they did they wouldn't buy everything on ebay or amazon (neither of which provide value other than convenience). Small retail business is in serious jeopardy in the US, not because of people scared to take risks but because they either don't have the money to get started or because they can't cash flow and show a profitable business plan that will get them the start-up equity (bank loans/lines of credit) they need to make it in business.

Why is the client pool limited to just north dakota? State law.

Funny, I have BCBS of California (though BCBS of CA is not licensed to do business in ND) and I know a good number of people from MN who have BCBS of ND.

Why is health insurance so commonly tied to employment? Federal law.

AFAIK the only insurance businesses are required to carry is Workers Compensation Insurance to compensate employees should they be hurt while on the job. And liability insurance in case they screw something up and get sued. http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/employee_required_insurance.htm

Needs Citation.

Large businesses get a bad-rap that is often undeserved. Standard Oil acquired his near-monopoly by being better and more efficient than the companies he bought out. He showed people how much cheaper he was going to run their business and offered to buy them out, usually at a handsome profit for the existing owners and often with a reduction of prices and/or increase in service/value for the end customers. That is exactly what is supposed to happen!

Was that a wikipedia stat? Looks like it...also looks like it needs citation.

I can't beleive the cognitive dissonance people have towards wal-mart. They are the #1 employer in many small towns where the economy had crashed [even prior to wal-mart showing up], and they consistently put more goods and value into peoples hands for less money than other places. And Wal-Mart has probably done more to end child prostitution in Asia than any other organization in history. How? By giving people (including, occasionally, children) jobs and dumping american cash into the hands of people who, prior to western investment, have been living the same life of backbreaking agrarian labor or servitude that has been largely unchanged for 6000 fucking years.

You also realize that they tend to destroy small businesses in their wake due to their enormous purchasing power and fairly ruthless business practices. I'm not saying they are all bad, hell I shop there because the prices are low myself (hypocrite, I know) I have no doubt that they provide a good benefit for a lot of people, however they are as close to slave labor as you can get in this country.

Good read from UC Berkley (yeah, I know liberal socialist college..blah blah blah) http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

What you don't understand is that business of any size doesn't have any COERCIVE power without government. I beleive that you have a right to start a business, to sell what you want, for the price you want. The government by and large doesn't. You need a license, you need to pay a ream of taxes, comply with piles of stupid laws and regulations, and if you're in a politically "fun" industry you cant set your prices too high or its gouging, and you can't set them too low if its dumping.

I understand it just fine. I came from the highly regulated Fire & Security Industry and currently work in the highly regulated Insurance and Finance industry. Every regulation that is there (that I've dealt with) on both is a good thing....and both could use more regulation as I see shit every day that makes me wonder how the hell it can be legal. I also understand that 99% of those regulations actually come from the industry recommendations.

So I think you have a right to try to do whatever you like with your assets and your business. But the government says otherwise, and when it comes down to brass tacks, they'll just shoot you to make their point.

Aside from illegal activity (drugs, etc...), where does the gov say I can't start a business?

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, cannot do anything to you, except try and do a better job than you do. Guess who wins when they do a better job? Everybody. Yes, even you. When someone beats your ass in the market, you learn a valueable lesson: namely, that you should invest your capital and labor differently than you did last time. Business failure is critical to a market economy and acheving economic efficiency, and it is one of the reason we have such pro-business, pro-bankruptcy laws in this country: we set the rules to reward risk takers.

I agree with you to a point, and where I disagree I've already pointed out.

Here's the magic. "Big Business" cannot do a terrible job unless they have a captive audience.. an audience with no other options. How do you get a captive audience? How does a bad business absolutely guarantee competitors cannot succeed or exist?

Government. It's the only way, and it's always been the only way. Even in the middle ages when you had merchant guilds controlling everything -- those guilds were backed by the force of law.

I love wal-mart. I almost never shop there, but I love it.

I'll be the first to say that Walmart does a great job of price negotiating, but the problem is that with their enormous buying power, you'll never get close to the same deals as they do. You'll never be able to fully compete in any sector they are in unless you are close to their size/buying power. How do you get to that size if you can't compete until you are that size?

The American people were dumb enough to vote for Obama, what makes you think they are smart enough to recognize that the best value is not necessarily the best price?