"You didn't build that" - Obama

[theprof00]

Kasz216 said:

badgenome said:

Kasz216 said:

Or at the least you could argue for "Progressive Reuglations" that ramp up the bigger you get.

Yeah, at the very least. The only problem I see with it is that regulations are always sold as "sticking it to the fat cats" anyway when the fat cats can always afford to comply (especially when they help write the damn things), and since they're always going to be sold as being progressive even if they're extremely regressive, you'll never know unless you look into just what the regulations do. And even though people seem to know that politicians are always full of shit, they also seem to always buy into this idea that a given regulation is just there to stop Evil Guys, Inc. from dumping AIDS in the water supply and could in no way hurt the small business owner if a pol tells them so. But there is no real substitute for people being informed, I guess, and when they're not... well, we end up here.

Yep.  It's sad that there isn't some sort of miraculous database that gives people access to information in seconds in which it previously would of took hours and sometimes weeks of grueling research to look up itself.

Eh, then again if it did exist it'd probably have porn that would distract everyone anyway.

A miraculous database with as enough lies as truths so to render itself no more efficient nor easy than weeks of grueling research.

If only some based realist informed you of this before you decided to acquiesce to sarcasm. Such tradgedy.

 

This is the first time I see eye to eye with badge. But for example, when I see someone like Mitt doing all these things historically that seem, well, extremely harmful economically but good for personal fortune, what am I supposed to think? It's not a problem that's as easily understood in the way you paint it. He's the one who is right? His history was taking companies, shipping the jobs, and liquidating national companies that provided jobs. That didn't increase our economy, or our tax revenue, or our middle class. But, he's the one who is right?

As another example, you say national health is bad for economy. In MA, where I live, sure prices went up, but then costs plummeted and are now a fifth of what they were pre-mandate. Yet Mitt is right that it is bad...when he was the one who did it in the first place and it worked? I'm supposed to just accept when you say it's bad?

How am I supposed to think when you're against something that I've seen work, and then act as if these solutions of yours are so common and basic that THE INTERNET of all places, is a reliable source.

That rationale is completely backwards to me, counterintuitive and unforgiving.