Comments on MOMENT OF CLARITY: Behold The Walmart

This is so right on! Keep it up! Regards, Dan

2012-01-30T13:55:56.021-06:00

This is so right on! Keep it up!

Regards, Dan

Thank you so much for your amazing article. You ar...

2012-01-30T13:35:20.928-06:00

Thank you so much for your amazing article. You are absolutely right. I can't stand when people say they are against capitalism because it isn't fair, e.g., some people win and others lose. It's the best economic system in the world because it gives everyone the same chance to succeed. And it creates more wealth than any government ever could. Thank you for standing up for what is right.

Wow, you are really full of it muttmutt. Oh well, ...

2012-01-30T11:21:02.603-06:00

Wow, you are really full of it muttmutt. Oh well, ignorance is the mind of the lefty.

With that I am done, cannot wait to read your next post Tim.

Dr. Tim: "5,4,3,2,1....TIME! Ok, boys - that&...

2012-01-30T11:17:29.303-06:00

Dr. Tim: "5,4,3,2,1....TIME! Ok, boys - that's enough now on this post. Everyone knows where everyone stands and nobody is going to convince anybody so is time to shut this thread down. Beat regards, Tim"

Awwww, Dad.... It was just getting GOOD!!!!

:-)

keithh1981: "Only if your human nature would ...

2012-01-30T11:16:21.709-06:00

keithh1981: "Only if your human nature would be responsible enough to explain your big government beliefs which I rightfully exposed."

Really? Where? I didn't see any links to anything I've specifically written, only vague pointers to my entire corpus of work on The Masses. Have you actually READ any of the posts?

Here's a homework assignment for you. Pick a post, any post, identify a specific idea to which you object and make an argument as to why you object to it. Do the research. Make your case. Don't just pretend that you've done anything more than general hand waving and leering. You haven't.

5,4,3,2,1....TIME! Ok, boys - that's enough n...

2012-01-30T11:14:04.121-06:00

5,4,3,2,1....TIME! Ok, boys - that's enough now on this post. Everyone knows where everyone stands and nobody is going to convince anybody so is time to shut this thread down. Beat regards, Tim

Gayle M: "You object to the USPS recognizing ...

2012-01-30T11:10:50.971-06:00

Gayle M: "You object to the USPS recognizing the future liabilities of healthcare costs..."

Ummm, no, I don't. I never said that. I never said anything even remotely like that. In fact, what I said was precisely the opposite of what you claim I said.

"The question isn't whether the USPS should have to fund their pension & healthcare adequately, they should. Like any public or private enterprise that makes a commitment to it's employees, the resources should be there when they're needed."

What I DO object to is the Congress singling out the USPS for a scheme which was designed, from the beginning, to induce a fiscal crisis in the post office. Go back and read what I wrote and the links I provided.

By the way, until you learn the difference between...

2012-01-30T11:05:30.935-06:00

By the way, until you learn the difference between reality and fantasy in your big government beliefs, you should't criticise one error which is just human nature. Only if your human nature would be responsible enough to explain your big government beliefs which I rightfully exposed. Why you come here for a supposed different view if all you do is laugh because it requires you to think for yourself, be self-reliant and be your own man. Isn't it amazing how Clinton and Obama grew up in poor backgrounds yet never let that stop them? Yet now they want to tell their sheep like you you cannot do it without them. Show me in the dictionary where that is termed leadership. Is that what the President of the United States supposed to be? Is that not what Obama campaigned on?

Oh I was wrong. It was a Bush law. I apologize for...

2012-01-30T10:57:09.164-06:00

Oh I was wrong. It was a Bush law. I apologize for my error. Just shows Obama is just continuing the failed policies of Bush only on a faster scale.

Mutt Mutt, You object to the USPS recognizing the ...

2012-01-30T10:50:32.462-06:00

Mutt Mutt, You object to the USPS recognizing the future liabilities of healthcare costs, yet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) require all publicly traded companies to record liabilities like the PAEA of 2006. You call it the poison pill that destroyed the USPS profitability. Yet, Walmart and IBM (all publicly traded co.) don't cry "poison pill" because they have been required to report these liabilities for DECADES. Yes, only in 2006 was the playing field leveled to recognize the failure of the USPS. If only all Government Supported Enterprises known as GSE's were required to report future liabilities then we would have a much bleaker view of our government deficit situation.

Thanks for pointing out that USPS had preferential treatment until 2006.

keithh1981: "Oh no muttmutt that lightbulb wa...

2012-01-30T10:34:03.414-06:00

keithh1981: "Oh no muttmutt that lightbulb was signed by Obama and he did that to help his campaign friends namely GE."

It took 17 seconds of Google searching to prove you wrong (again). Is it really so hard to check your facts?

"The initial version[31] of H.R. 6 passed the House of Representatives on January 18, 2007, by a vote of 264 to 163. The Senate version[32] passed 65-27 on June 21, but bore almost no resemblance to the original bill. Speaker Pelosi indicated on Oct 10 that instead of sending the bill to a conference committee, the House would negotiate informally with the Senate to resolve their differences.[33]
The House took up the energy bill again in December, passing a new version on December 6. This version, renamed the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", restored the oil industry tax increases of the original bill. It also added a requirement that U.S. electric utilities must obtain 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.[34][35][36]
When this bill was introduced to the Senate, the new provisions became the focus of debate. The White House and Sen. Domenici warned that Bush would veto the bill because of the tax portion. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats had "shown how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" by "inserting an enormous tax hike, a tax hike they knew would doom this legislation." Reid said Congress should not be intimidated by a veto threat, "We are the Congress of the United States. We can write things even though the president may not like them." Democrats said that the tax measure was modest and only took back tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 and that they did not need them with oil prices at about $90 a barrel.[37]
The House version of the bill (with $13 billion raised from the oil industry, a mandate that utilities rely on renewable energy for at least 15 percent of their power generation, and a $21.8 billion 10-year tax package) failed by a one vote margin. A final attempt to end debate and make way for a vote failed by 59 - 40 despite the return of four Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (Ill.), Christopher Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.). Nine Republicans voted in favor of ending debate while one Democrat, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) voted against it. Sen. John McCain was not present.[37]
The revised Senate bill passed 86-8 on December 13. The House approved this final version 314-100 on December 18, and President Bush signed it the following day."

God DAMN but you're stupid. Jesus...

Oh no muttmutt that lightbulb was signed by Obama ...

2012-01-30T10:21:04.771-06:00

Oh no muttmutt that lightbulb was signed by Obama and he did that to help his campaign friends namely GE. You are pulling all the stops to defend Obama Uh? I believe you think Solindra isn't his fault also!

muttmutt: Rand is a joke if you believe in the sta...

2012-01-30T10:19:16.624-06:00

muttmutt: Rand is a joke if you believe in the state over the individual, and Hayek is fanciful if you think it couldn't happen here. To quote what I imagine who would be one of your idols: "We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted (i.e. regulated in your vernacular) the freedom of the individual must become...Benito Mussolini".

Muttmutt how about you look at Russia, Germany and...

2012-01-30T10:17:55.800-06:00

Muttmutt how about you look at Russia, Germany and Italy in Wold war 2. You obviously do not have a great grasp of reality. It is ok though, that is your right and I hope this country will have enough money to support your ignorance for many years. It is amazing how you rely on others for opinion and always quote someone else for the words you rely on. That just proves you are not an independent person and the very person we thought you are. You do not even know history or economics because if you did you would see the problem with our big government. You can read all the philosphers you want but you are never going to get anything from them unless you apply reality in your life. A lot of people like yourself prefer to stay ignorant of reality because it is just easier to do so.

Wow, again you fail to understand reality. It is o...

2012-01-30T10:09:33.026-06:00

Wow, again you fail to understand reality. It is one thing to read a bunch of philosophers and neglect to look at his actions. Obama is nothing but a community organizer with no real world experience. The very reason he is over his head.

Major officials at Harvard even said he was a idiot who offered nothing of real value, he didn't even finish his class properly by writing an essay which all students are required.

Again you acknowledge you big government beliefs and love for Obama. Anybody with any real insight on economics knows Obama is killing this country, his own party was even debating to have a democratic primary because they know he he is screwing the pooch. The Democrats are about to lose the senate in the 2012 elections mainly because of him, Pepsi and Reid.

Anybody who believes in our country doesn't think of our constitution as negative liberties. You only hear that from the socialist democrats. They and you can twist it how many times you want, but there is only such a thing as natural and positive liberties. Natural liberties is what our government is only responsible for in our constitution. That is why Obama says it is negative. Positive liberties are legislative rights, like collective bargaining, health care, education, etc. You know the rights that our government really isn't responsible for. Your socialist democrats hate that because without positive to exploit they cannot truly exercise more power. Also goes with their philosophy, they do not think you are smart enough to be your own man and manage your own life.

Obviously you muttmutt cannot manage your own license a guy like Obama is intriguing to you. You need and want government to pay and dictate your life. If Obama was a true leader he would encourage everybody to go through life like he did. He might have been just a community organizer but he was also a hard worker. Obama and Clinton both came from poor backgrounds but never used government to get ahead. Yet now they are in power they want to magically give you a helping hand.

Benjamin Franklin once said he traveled the world and saw how different governments handled their poor. The more government does for their poor, the less the poor does for themselves and becomes dependant. The less the government does for the poor, the more the poor does for themselves and becomes more wealthier. Remember this was 200 years ago. Do you really see all the poor getting these hand outs really improving or Declining? They are actually declining and now rioting with the wall street occupy crowd complaining how people who have money are living comfortably and not them. Duh.

It is called accountability and responsibility and when people get used to government interaction, they lose that. I do not expect you to understand that even though Obama and Clinton are both proof of that.

Steverino: Once again, slippery slope arguments ar...

2012-01-30T10:04:48.634-06:00

Steverino: Once again, slippery slope arguments are slippery. They're not convincing in the slightest.

"Socialism usually starts small (like with government pushing through a few regulations, always in the name of "helping the people", or saving the environment to make life safer or better for everyone (sounds so nice, doesn't it?)."

Really? Where did it happen like this? Cite me one country where this was the path to a socialist government. All the examples I can think of were the result of a rapid revolutionary process (Russia, North Korea, Cuba) or an imposition by external force (eastern Europe, Angola).

"No one is advocating absolutely no regulations, but a government unfettered that thinks the constitution is a meaningless, out of date document, is certainly a government that thinks it is the solution to everyting that ails us, and fully understands the necessary steps in the march towards socialism."

Again, you're arguing with a straw man here. Nowhere did I (or anyone I know) say that government is the "solution to everything that ails us." That's a meaningless position and certainly not one I've advocated.

"Telling us what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, where companies can locate new plants (i.e. the NLRB and Boeing), the EPA jamming regulations down our throats and on and on gradually moves towards the control you suggest."

Let's take the FDA for an example here. They don't tell you what to eat, they make sure what you eat is safe. They make recommendations about what is healthy based on the science of nutrition. And they prohibit harmful products from staying on the market. Is that a bad thing?

As for the NLRB, you and I could go around and around on labor law, I suspect neither of us are experts so I will leave that for another day.

And, for the record, the lightbulb thing was signed into law by GW Bush and came from a Republican controlled congress... But that may not be important to you. I guess if that's the scope of your complaints about the intrusions on liberty, you don't have much to complain about.

"I would suggest you read a couple books to understand that the nature of government totalitariznism taking hold is insidious in nature."

I agree. The fusion of corporations with government is a dangerous trend in recent years. Government needs to shake off the shackles of the corporatocracy.

"Just a little bit at a time until we wake up one day and wonder what happened."

That day was when George Bush got re-elected.

"I would suggest you read a couple books to understand this reality: Atlas Shrugged, and The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek."

Ayn Rand... Wow... Really? I think Corey Robin has the best quote about Ayn Rand:

“Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladamir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both.”

I've read Atlas Shrugged and laughed my ass off. It was interesting when I was 14, but I grew out of it. It's a joke... She's a joke...

Hayek, on the other hand, is not a joke and I have read his work. I simply find his work fanciful. Any economic theory that is based on human "rationality" is broken on it's face. Everything built up from there is simply wrong.

"You, young man, might learn something that you apparently are not aware of...but may not care to face."

There are many things I know, and far more that I don't. That's why I enjoy poking around at Dr. Tim's place. You never know what you might find.

keithh1981: A libertarian who doesn't know the...

2012-01-30T09:46:47.796-06:00

keithh1981: A libertarian who doesn't know the meaning of the word "liberty?" Wow...

"I didn't know the freedom of speech, assembly, bear arms etc are negatives."

"Negative liberty" does not mean that something is a negative as in bad, "negative liberty" refers to a "free and clear to navigate" form of liberty.

"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities."

It was a concept developed as early as Hobbes, but the differentiation between positive and negative liberty was articulated by Hegel (Marx's strongest influence, BTW).

The concepts of Negative and Positive Liberty were best articulated by philosopher, Isaiah Berlin in 1958 in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty."

I'd think you'd be pleased at Obama, our Constitutional Law Scholar President as asserting a negative liberty view of the Constitution.

But then you'd have to know what negative liberty means.

And you don't.

Hence your confusion.

Remember Obama hinself already came out and said t...

2012-01-30T08:29:14.437-06:00

Remember Obama hinself already came out and said the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. I didn't know the freedom of speech, assembly, bear arms etc are negatives. I know Obama and the likes of him like to control things. He recently came out and said he wants to shrink the government to make it more efficient which we all like to hear however he added afterwords he wants more complete and total control given to his office. There are reasons why we have these checks and balances but Obama is working hard to undermine them.

Remember Obama hinself already came out and said t...

2012-01-30T08:28:29.126-06:00

Muttmutt: Socialism usually starts small (like wit...

2012-01-30T08:19:48.577-06:00

Muttmutt: Socialism usually starts small (like with government pushing through a few regulations, always in the name of "helping the people", or saving the environment to make life safer or better for everyone (sounds so nice, doesn't it?). No one is advocating absolutely no regulations, but a government unfettered that thinks the constitution is a meaningless, out of date document, is certainly a government that thinks it is the solution to everyting that ails us, and fully understands the necessary steps in the march towards socialism. Telling us what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, where companies can locate new plants (i.e. the NLRB and Boeing), the EPA jamming regulations down our throats and on and on gradually moves towards the control you suggest. I would suggest you read a couple books to understand that the nature of government totalitariznism taking hold is insidious in nature. Just a little bit at a time until we wake up one day and wonder what happened. I would suggest you read a couple books to understand this reality: Atlas Shrugged, and The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. You, young man, might learn something that you apparently are not aware of...but may not care to face.

Still running...I thought so. Must be that big gov...

2012-01-29T14:54:18.131-06:00

Still running...I thought so. Must be that big government taxation you believe in.

Did you hear that? I thought I heard something......

2012-01-29T14:51:43.350-06:00

Did you hear that? I thought I heard something... Something buzzing around like a big horsefly... Oh well, must have been the wind.

We would like a coherent response of answering lik...

2012-01-29T13:24:52.270-06:00

We would like a coherent response of answering like an adult and explaining why such a big government philosophy is in a forum that is tailored to limited government philosophy yet cannot even defend your own positions. A coherent response is not running away by the way. Anybody who likes former congressman from Florida Alan Grayson is a blind fool in many of our opinions here.

Your own beliefs are imputed in your profile by yo...

2012-01-29T12:53:34.641-06:00

Your own beliefs are imputed in your profile by you. How about owning your own beliefs not making excuses.

You don't just owe me, but owe everybody here ...

2012-01-29T12:51:24.284-06:00

You don't just owe me, but owe everybody here you wasted of our time. You come here to debate yet you refuse to acknowledge your own profile or beliefs, which in turn tie in with your arguments for higher taxation and your wild belief that the United States is largely liberal and likes regulation.

Until you can explain yourself, I agree that you should allow the adults to have this discussion. Adults are able and capable of answering direct questions and not running away because you are too afraid to acknowledge your own beliefs.

You can continue to run away from the discussion, something you lefties are good at.