DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I think everyone here agrees that the government shouldn't be doing favors for Wall Street. Where we disagree is the idea that if the government went completely hands off, Wall Street wouldn't screw as many people as possible in the pursuit of profits.

Wall Street, at one time, had a select group of investors.  Now with pension plans, a great many people invest - indirectly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I think everyone here agrees that the government shouldn't be doing favors for Wall Street. Where we disagree is the idea that if the government went completely hands off, Wall Street wouldn't screw as many people as possible in the pursuit of profits.

Once again, I commend you for trying Funk, but Libertarians will just come up with something like "Then people will move their money to businesses that won't screw them around thus making the incentive to treat customers well".   It's like a Fundamentalist religion but economics.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Wall Street, at one time, had a select group of investors.  Now with pension plans, a great many people invest - indirectly.  

Which I would argue makes regulation even more vital.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I think everyone here agrees that the government shouldn't be doing favors for Wall Street. Where we disagree is the idea that if the government went completely hands off, Wall Street wouldn't screw as many people as possible in the pursuit of profits.

I don't think anyone (short of some anarchists and/or hardcore libertarians) advocates for no regulations, just way less than currently.

 

For example, just check out the rules for tax in Canada.

Image result for canada income tax act book

 

The thing is a freak'n telephone book.  It's full of technicalities, loopholes, exemptions, etc.  That's why huge business and the wealthy are able to minimize their tax bills.... there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to manipulate things.  And they have the means and resources to dig through every single line to get what it needs.  If they don't, that's were lobbying comes in to add an exception or two (and thus making the book longer).  If things were really "free capitalism", this type of book wouldn't exist.  

 

Now magnify that to all facet of business operations and even to everyday life.  You will see that there are way way way too many laws and regulations currently in place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

I don't think anyone (short of some anarchists and/or hardcore libertarians) advocates for no regulations, just way less than currently.

 

For example, just check out the rules for tax in Canada.

Image result for canada income tax act book

 

The thing is a freak'n telephone book.  It's full of technicalities, loopholes, exemptions, etc.  That's why huge business and the wealthy are able to minimize their tax bills.... there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to manipulate things.  And they have the means and resources to dig through every single line to get what it needs.  If they don't, that's were lobbying comes in to add an exception or two (and thus making the book longer).  If things were really "free capitalism", this type of book wouldn't exist.  

 

Now magnify that to all facet of business operations and even to everyday life.  You will see that there are way way way too many laws and regulations currently in place.  

I see what you're getting at but you don't think corporations wouldn't continue to exploit as many loopholes (and people) as possible in a free market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I see what you're getting at but you don't think corporations wouldn't continue to exploit as many loopholes (and people) as possible in a free market?

They will.

I can see we agree fundamentally, that no one should be abusing the system... just different opinion on how to reach that place. 

 

More rules to prevent abuse vs having less opportunity for them to abuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 12:13 PM, Warhippy said:

Hi.  I'm defending a racist by blaming others.

 

Sir, you're defending a racist period.

 

No I'm defending liberty duh

So, you are calling anyone who agrees within any single issue that the orange turd raises are, in turn, a racist?   Brilliant deduction.    

 

No wonder society is a mess - all many can see is their own hatred of someone else.

  • Thanks 2
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So, you are calling anyone who agrees within any single issue that the orange turd raises are, in turn, a racist?   Brilliant deduction.    

 

No wonder society is a mess - all many can see is their own hatred of someone else.

Nah, Tucker Carlson is just your everyday d*uche bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...Trump is a genius alright....:rolleyes:

Quote

 

When President Trump met human rights activist Nadia Murad, an Iraqi who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for speaking out about her agonizing torture and rape while in Islamic State captivity, he seemed unaware of her story and the plight of her Yazidi ethnic minority.

 

For several minutes in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Murad stood beside a seated Trump, who mostly avoided eye contact with Murad, and implored the president to help her community return to Iraq. She explained that the Islamic State, or ISIS, may be gone but that Iraqis and Kurds are now fighting for control over Yazidi lands.

 

“If I cannot go to my home and live in a safe place and get my dignity back, this is not about ISIS,” she said, her voice breaking. “It’s about I’m in danger. My people cannot go back.”

 

Murad, who now lives in Germany, told him she never wanted to be a refu­gee but that ISIS murdered her mother and six brothers.

 

“Where are they now?” Trump asked.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/a-yazidi-woman-from-iraq-told-trump-that-isis-killed-her-family-where-are-they-now-he-asked/ar-AAEzMVm?li=AAggNb9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So, you are calling anyone who agrees within any single issue that the orange turd raises are, in turn, a racist?   Brilliant deduction.    

 

No wonder society is a mess - all many can see is their own hatred of someone else.

That's what you derived from that?  Like, seriously that's the conclusion you managed to come to?

 

Cool stuff.

 

Tell me how first Nations are immigrants again.

Edited by Warhippy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

A blast from the past.  70 years young.

Superman_American_599fc05023f332.03698933.jpg

Trump triggered by fake news; attempting to build ceiling to keep aliens out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 2:44 AM, Warhippy said:

That's what you derived from that?  Like, seriously that's the conclusion you managed to come to?

 

Cool stuff.

 

Tell me how first Nations are immigrants again.

It hasn't been proven but there is a theory that they crossed over the land bridge from Asia when it was connected. If this is true then it would make them the very first immigrants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smokes said:

It hasn't been proven but there is a theory that they crossed over the land bridge from Asia when it was connected. If this is true then it would make them the very first immigrants.

It has been proven in part.  The oldest settlement though has been shown to be over 80,000 years old.  As mankind has shown to be only a few hundred thousand years old pushing that narrative is effectively kind of stupid because that would mean people were here longer than they were in the UK or Ireland.  Not even mentioning Australia.

 

When people stick to an argument against First Nations because "they were immigrants" it kind of paints them in an ugly light

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Warhippy said:

It has been proven in part.  The oldest settlement though has been shown to be over 80,000 years old.  As mankind has shown to be only a few hundred thousand years old pushing that narrative is effectively kind of stupid because that would mean people were here longer than they were in the UK or Ireland.  Not even mentioning Australia.

 

When people stick to an argument against First Nations because "they were immigrants" it kind of paints them in an ugly light

Bah...we are ALL children of Xenu! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   1 member