Bring back Reagan and/or a less sleazy version of Bill Clinton.

Why do you hate Amazon in your rants? Prices haven't gone up, they have gone down. Service hasn't gone down, it's gone up. You seem to worry too much.

Go to Amazon, order something to cheer you up, it will arrive tomorrow and it won't cost much. Enjoy it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Called it.
They simply can't help themselves. They have one way

and it's the only way they know.
(I'm kicking myself for forgetting "hate" - people always "hate" things in their posting, I could have called the whole sentence).
Meanwhile:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're not a Patriot are you? Do you feel that you are easily manipulated?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sounds like your selling socialism

socialism is ok for a large private corporate to excuse it from being accountable to the larger economy but is not ok for the workers and the community in which it operates ?

that is quite a common ideology of those people whom were heavily indoctrinated from the cold war economic lies that were pedaled as social engineering.
compromising as iceura puts it to the "both-sides" position does not neutralize the imbalance of the regulations, laws or culture.
it also does not automatically act as a governing regulatory body on company mergers acquisitions and market supply domination.

fall back position when your losing the intellectual arguement
play the coward card
call them a coward and say they hate america
then claim they hate the military and start waiving a flag around and wearing the death and suffering of minimum-low-wage-soldiers-who-have-no-health-care on their arm like a badge.

thats quite sad

 

How am I "selling socialism"?
I'm feel like I'm trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't capable of having a conversation. You are definitely gullible.

 

LoL
you think your smarter than me because you avoid stating an opinion and you think your playing with me making me go around in circles
lol

i am well aware of your games and your attempted soft trolling of baiting a position out of me.

you think you can turn anything back around at me instead of answering a question and debating the subject.
lol

your fooling yourself and as long as that makes you happy thats all that matters.

your subtle personal dig that you lay in at the end as a passing shot to try and set up an air of undermining me as a group appeal is getting a little boring.
it clearly shows your vindictive side. bit of a give-away.
bit of a hard edge personality trait so it seems

no doubt you are rolling on the floor laughing at your thought of being able to subtly throw in bill clinton as being labelled sleazy into the thread header is quite funny
classic alt-right trolling pretending to be a centrist.
lol
you must think your quite clever.
you think i didn't know you were trolling the democrats with this subject ?
if that is the only thing that gives you your thrills then your welcome to it.

you have avoided debating the subject at great length but probably think you have soo cleverly made everyone dance to your tune and bait people into assumptive reason that bill clinton is sleazy...

continue with your fakeness
i think im done with this subject.
same old broken record

 

Try having a normal conversation instead of trying to throw a bomb into every discussion.

I am a liberal Democrat (to the extent that I care about labels). I do understand economics and I do kind of like some things that Reagan did. I don't see economics as being liberal vs conservative.

You try so hard to not reveal anything about what you think. Why try that hard?

I think you accused me of being both conservative and a socialist in one post. That's why it's impossible to carry on a conversation with you. That and your lack of proper grammar.

I think you might be the biggest troll here although I could be wrong. You could just be a very confused individual.

 

technically i was suggesting you seem to suggest that business should enjoy socialist law & compliance while living in a free market taking on the legal rights as a human while not having any compulsory regulatory expectations for the community via wage rates and taxation.

maybe the way i said it was too tongue in cheek

no i dont
i debate the issues.
you give a literal leaning toward being a corporate apologist (someone who thinks business can do no wrong and should only care about profits as an ideological core economic principal)

there are several different forms of "liberal democrat"

which form are you referring to ?
the alt-right conservative small government idea who thinks government should not run businesses ?

or, do you mean socially liberal in laws = decriminalization of recreational drugs, less regulation on personal freedoms etc .. ?
i am "liberal" in social policy in that i believe in LGBTQ+ rights equal rights for women and non discrimination policys
also positive discrimination by way of quota systems for minority groups.

tossing an argumentative core principal into the debating ring to seek clarity on core beliefs around idealism toward social and legal policy descriptions ...

LoL
if i was a troll i would be hiding behind proxys and using different user names
your use of the word troll is almost trollish

eg

normal in what way ?

yet political partys make economic laws and decide who gets what money to define the very core of economic reality
regulations
education & health budgets
new laws
etc etc ... trade regulations
licensing

here is your turning the subject around to not give your opinion

and adding a dissqualifier into it stating that there is no point anyway

and here you are somewhat trolling with your perception of iceaura being a socialist

turning the subject into a personal slight of personality around personal attributes instead of debating the topic.

here you are saying you believe in less regulation for business

liberal conservative UK
Liberal Conservative USA
Liberal Democrat UK
Liberal Democrat Australia

being "liberal" as opposed to being a political "liberal" who beleive in reducing the size of government and reducing government laws on personal freedoms
yet the USA version is about crime and punishment
seeking to make more laws against civilians while enabling pay per fine legal concepts around pay per law so rich pay fines and poor get jail etc ...


liberal dems in the uk are alt-right
liberal dems in the usa are alt right centrists
liberal dems in aussie are alt-right user pays
conservatives in the usa are about taking business away from government while installing religious laws

you may need to clarify so i understand what you mean.
a traditional liberal democrat is against social services like unemployment benefits and social funding and pro user pays.
more an idealism for the rich elitists

 

I've always had this user name by the way and if I was hiding my name wouldn't be Seattle. You're the one with the name of RainbowSingularity and the obnoxious avatar. Who is "hiding"?

I'm liberal in the social policy sense. I have no problem with reasonable taxes and reasonable safety nets with those taxes. Socialism has nothing to do with taxes. As you know, it has to do with ownership of the means of production.

Socialism isn't a bad word to me. The U.S. (and most countries) are a mix of capitalism and socialism. I don't want to live in a predominately socialist economic system but capitalism with regulation and taxes is fine as long as it's not too regulated or more to the point, too planned. That's what doesn't work in a purely socialist economic system.

Your ideas are skewed regarding business either being the "bad guy" or "can do no wrong". That's pretty simplistic isn't it?

Of course businesses seek to maximize profits but they do that by considering their employees and customers. Those who do the best job of that end up with higher profits usually in a open market system. The reality of course is that working in the corporate world isn't a piece of cake and it's usually a pretty dog eat dog world and most people are glad to get out at some point.

Your general approach is to slander the individual and to assume the worst. I used to work in international banking so you imply that I'm somehow involved in high risk mortgages and foreclosures, private banking and whatever other assumptions you have made. You also make it clear that you aren't from that world and therefore aren't especially knowledgeable in many of your simplistic comments.

None of that has anything to do with international banking. Your approach seems to be the old us vs them of the union days...suits vs workers, etc.

Who even wants to work in that kind of environment, regardless of whether you are a "suit" or a "worker"? It's much more productive and pleasant working for companies where there aren't those kinds of distinctions and attitudes.

You'd be much more persuasive if you dropped the "corporate apologist" and "Republican Propaganda" chants as well. If you want a job, you want companies to exist and to make profits. Otherwise all you have is the state.

You don't have to be a "corporate apologist" to understand economics, have a job in the private sector and try to make a profit. If that's not want you want then you should just come right out and say that you prefer a totally socialist basic economic system where the state owes the means of production.

Slander doesn't really get you anywhere or add to the persuasiveness of your argument. If you just want to alienate everyone, just keep following Iceaura around and trying to psychoanalyse everyone.

 

liberal social democrat
that is me
pro social welfare systems
pro business
pro regulation
pro state owned enterprise.
i would prefer that all utility companies are owned by the state as state run business models because the state has to fund all the investment.
i dont like a national system of user pay health care
i believe in universal health care with private pharmcos doing the personal investment and then being bulk funded by government to deliver vital medication.

user pays health care with insurance companys calling the shots, denying health care to war veterans and emergency services personal is in my mind despicable
the government should give free health care to such people in a user pays health care system as they work for the state and face many ongoing issues that give them life long serious medical conditions.
insurance companys cut them off from their much needed medications and kill them off.
moraly i think that is abhorrent
the massive number of military suicides are a clear sign of that system not working and they are paying the price with their lives.
they live miserable lives having to fight at every corner to try and get life saving medications and their quality of life is destroyed and their life spans are vastly reduced intentionally.

the government as their employer should be funding those medications and ongoing treatment for depression and PTSD and other serious mental health issues, not to mention the toxic poisoning they receive
9/11 emergency res ponders and gulf war Vietnam war and Korean war vets have been abandoned by the government.

the government lack of standing up and being accountable for their employees who they put in harms way have no excuse to not just give such people open accounts for their medications and therapy.

so i am more of a liberal social democrat

i have posted all this stuff before on here maybe 3 times over the last 3 years or more.

 

personal slight
my lack of compliance to your rules...
getting that "jab" in ...
= personality trait

not all of them
if it were not for unions employees would have no lunch breaks be working 6 day weeks and be on minimum wage with no holidays.

if you have a thing against unions then that's your bias. probably from being in a position of superiority and never needing one.

have you ever been a member of a union ?

 

I have not been a member of a union. There aren't many unions around here to begin with and I would try my best not to join one. Even though I suppose you could unionize any job, I haven't been in jobs where they were more the norm.

 

If you understood economics, you would know better than to "like" Reagan's muddleheaded supply side idiocy. The only thing that saved the US economy was the opposition from Congress to the more radically insane stuff - slowed him down.

Imagine if Reagan had been able to break Social Security altogether - what the loss of housing equity in the Republican Crash of "08 (the Crash of Reaganomics) would have done to this country if there had been no Social Security?

But it is rightwing vs leftwing.
And you do see it as Republican vs Democrat.
And you do see labor unions and similar curbs on "free market capitalism", cornerstones of liberal as well as leftwing ideology, from a stereotypical "conservative" as well as rightwing perspective (blackmail via strike?).
So "liberal"?

 

I don't like supply side economics.

No, it isn't and no, I don't.

Yes, liberal. Socially I'm a liberal. I don't view economics as "left wing" and "right wing". It's just economics. Unions are a throw back to the days of yore.

A strike is legitimate as long as firing strikes is legitimate. When it's not, it's blackmail. It's not good business. It's not helpful to anyone.

 

[OFF TOPIC]

"I'm not made of airports..."

 

It's not a "view", but a definition. You don't have that choice - left wing and right wing are terms with meanings.

What you like is irrelevant. What you support and establish and defend defines your political stance.

Yeah, it is, and you have posted your Democrat vs Republican economic split - it's not a guess of mine, it's your explicit posting here.

Tell that to this year's, last year's, and the years's before dead union organizers in Mexico, or South and Central America.

So says the rightwing cadre - defining "legitimate" and "good business" accordingly. (Instead of, say: Firing people is legitimate as long as strikes are legitimate. Otherwise it's extortion, and bad business).

That view is a defining, characteristic, field mark of the right wing.

So you are economically rightwing - solidly, no question. If you didn't know that, now you do.

 

so the truth is democratic propaganda according to you?

 

crowd funded fascist ... lol

Rainbow bunting(to keep the working poor happy) Tea-party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

... ?
alt is just right enough for me ... ?...

 

It's not blackmail, it's negotiation between two parties with both conflicting and shared interests. Unions have never been more relevant.