Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anti-Free Market and Punishing Success

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    When the King of American Socialism, Bernie Sanders, agrees with a republican president on business, you know something is wrong.

    A tale of two old people who are unwilling to accept the fact that we now live in a digital age. Small businesses can still compete, they're just not going to do so as a traditional brick and mortar. They have to adapt with the times or simply fall behind. Ironically, Amazon can help these companies adapt which is noted later. But, it's not the government's role to aide entrepreneurs who are not pro-active.

    A republican president looking for regulations to stifle business....

    Biting your nose to spite your face?

    Bingo. Small businesses can essentially use Amazon as a warehouse along with tapping into their advanced digital marketing. By holding product at Amazon, not only will you benefit from their strong rankings in Google, you'll also be able to offer your customers Next-day and two-day shipping options, for free or extremely cheap.

    Alternatively, businesses can embrace the digital age on their own, without Amazon. SEO specifically is an amazingly cheap marketing function with extremely high return.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanz.../#2eb85f3f1b37

    All American's should be very concerned that we no longer have a party that wants to keep government out of the way and allow businesses to compete. If both democrats and republicans are willing to implement some form of socialist policy, one way or another, the American dream will eventually be no more. We cannot allow both sides to steadily chip away at free market and small government principles.
    Why, it's the 'art of the deal'

    Trump's big mouth and his so-called 'policies' are causing a mess economically. He's only going after Amazon because Bezos owns it and the Washington Post, which keeps publishing articles on the inefficiency and corruption of the current administration.

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/inve...zon/index.html
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #47
      And then we have China implementing their own tariffs against the US.

      As Oliver Hardy said many times: 'Here is another fine mess you have gotten us into...'

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartandhp
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pamak View Post
        So, if the SCOTUS which has 5 members appointed by conservative presidents strikes down the policies of "leftist" presidents, it is not because these policies are wrong or unconstitutional or because the SCOTUS acts as one element of the checks and balances included in the US Constitution but because the SCOTUS "pushes back on solely political reasons than legal ones."
        Or if the SCOTUS affirms tomorrow some of TRump's policies, it is not because these policies are legal or constitutional but because the SCOTUS pushes forward "on solely political reasons rather than legal ones."

        As you see, it works both ways...
        It upheld Obamacare with that balance. Want more examples?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          It upheld Obamacare with that balance. Want more examples?
          And what does this mean?

          All judges, including liberals often vote against "leftist" causes...

          Classic example the judge who was accused by Trump that he could not preside cases related to the wall because he was Mexican...

          and still

          https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...r-wall-n851761


          Federal judge whom Trump called 'Mexican' clears way for border wall
          Have you even considered that Obamacare passed not because the SCOTUS was partisan and wanted to help Obama but because the majority REALLY believed that the law was constitutional?
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #50
            Once again, too much 'right' and 'left'; liberal and conservative and not enough United States.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              So, if the SCOTUS which has 5 members appointed by conservative presidents strikes down the policies of "leftist" presidents, it is not because these policies are wrong or unconstitutional or because the SCOTUS acts as one element of the checks and balances included in the US Constitution but because the SCOTUS "pushes back on solely political reasons than legal ones."
              Or if the SCOTUS affirms tomorrow some of TRump's policies, it is not because these policies are legal or constitutional but because the SCOTUS pushes forward "on solely political reasons rather than legal ones."

              As you see, it works both ways...
              How many times has Scotus struck down policies of leftist presidents ?

              And you are wrong : there are NOT 5 members appointed by conservative presidents, unless you count Bush as a conservative , which is wrong : Bush was much more liberal than yoy think, idem for Reagan . And, these (imaginary ) conservative presidents had always to consider the Rinos in the Senate : the conservative majority in the senate is an illusion : there are now more than 14 Rinos, there were also a lot of Rinos when Reagan and old/young Bush were president.

              Graham, Flake, McCain, Collins, Murkowski, Corker, Portman, ....are only a few examples of senatorial Rinos .

              Presidents appoint judges......with the consent of the Senate, thus, in the end judges are appointed by the Senate .

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                Once again, too much 'right' and 'left'; liberal and conservative and not enough United States.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  I know this is going to engender massive backlash, but what Trump is, is he's the first President in a very long time that is actually a leader. His managerial skills are marginal.
                  I don't necessarily disagree - he's also an idiot though, and a mob led by an idiot, is quite dangerous to the individual.

                  Ah well, your choice, your poison
                  Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                  Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    Once again, too much 'right' and 'left'; liberal and conservative and not enough United States.
                    Then stop being part of that problem.
                    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Since part of this thread title is "Punishing Success", isn't that part of taxation? The more successful, the higher the taxes, or "punishment".

                      On the subject of sCOTUS, my major concern is the sheer number of decisions decided by one individual. The most common decision is 5-4, with the sides divided along the usual lines and the actual deciding vote cast by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, thus making him the actual deciding factor in way too many decisions.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X