patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

These are keywords that sound good but in practice are used to justify the worse corporate abuses.

When the individual speculator defaults on his loan and abandons the property, it shows lack of character and responsibility. When a bank does the exact same thing, it's a wise business decision and a right that no one should question.

Dan8267 says

When the individual speculator defaults on his loan and abandons the property, it shows lack of character and responsibility. When a bank does the exact same thing, it's a wise business decision and a right that no one should question.

Complete bullshit. Welfare is welfare.

dodgerfanjohn says

So to the chagrin of the modern racists like Marcus

Says the guy who thinks Trayvon Martin was not murdered.

I find it disingenuous but not surprising at all that modern racists use "I believe in judging individuals by the content of their character" as a BS line to justify and feel okay about themselves when they base their beliefs on generalizations about groups.

Quigley says

If conservatives love a level playing field, why are they so opposed to the estate tax? Why do they constantly lobby government for preferential rules and treatment to give their business an edge over others? Why do they defend predatory pricing of drugs for Americans vs the rest of the world with "property rights!?"

Increasingly, I see that a conservative is the same thing as a feudal lord, jealously defending his position atop the lowly serfs and his right to abuse them.

+
Very true.

Dan nailed it too. But it's only going to cause the idiots to dig in more deeply to hold on to their stupidity.

I visualize a young child with their fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you! LALALALALALALNANANANANANANANANANANNA !!" (that's what indigenous is doing right now)

Mutts...

Why does anyone even bother to put this out? The war is over. America will never be what it was. Never!

This is just rabble-rousing. If you believe this you are in the minority and in a democracy where the 51% controls the 49, you are the loser. You would have already bailed.

Bigsby says

dodgerfanjohn says

So to the chagrin of the modern racists like Marcus, US society more or less has been a level playing field for all races for 50 years now. The only thing holding blacks back in US Society is their own cultural flaws and racism against others.

A level playing field over the last 50 years? Please tell me you're joking.

Not havig resided in the US that entire time, and not having grown up here, I have no idea why you'd even bother commenting. Presumably your knowledge on the matter comes from that bastion of unbiased reporting that liberal idiots love so much...the BBC.

And anyway, clearly you took my comments out of context.

humanity says

dodgerfanjohn says

So to the chagrin of the modern racists like Marcus

Says the guy who thinks Trayvon Martin was not murdered.

I find it disingenuous but not surprising at all that modern racists use "I believe in judging individuals by the content of their character" as a BS line to justify and feel okay about themselves when they base their beliefs on generalizations about groups.

You just described the opposite of racist belief.

You are one very confused dude(or chick)

indigenous says

It's all: let the big corporations do whatever they want, practice fraud, extortion, and con jobs with impunity, corrupt lawmakers, etc, etc...

Crony capitalism

You're exactly right. This is what "conservatives" are all about.

mell says

Ah but there is absolutely not problem with this as both bear the consequences. The debt-serfs will default and the bank will go bankrupt.. unless they are bailed out by crony socialism/capitalism (really the same).

You have to distinguish between the bank and the banksters:

The bank could go under. The banksters would have made huge bonuses for years and don't give a rat's ass about what happens to the bank.

Plus as you say, they get bailed out anyway.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

Ah but there is absolutely not problem with this as both bear the consequences. The debt-serfs will default and the bank will go bankrupt.. unless they are bailed out by crony socialism/capitalism (really the same).

You have to distinguish between the bank and the banksters:

The bank could go under. The banksters would have made huge bonuses for years and don't give a rat's ass about what happens to the bank.

Plus as you say, they get bailed out anyway.

Well, there will be always middle-men who make out by taking immediate cuts for forward promises on labor, but these businesses go under pretty soon and a well-educated/recession-experienced public would and should avoid those transactions anyways. The bailouts instead of handcuffs (for fraud) are the main problem and as long as the rule of law is not restored partisan politics are utterly meaningless and there are no good or bad guys, only bad guys. For me the main pillar of libertarianism/conservatism is the rule of law, which has been raped and pillaged by todays progressives by
1) ignoring laws
2) selectively (not) prosecuting
3) passing laws that IMO are unconstitutional (such as affirmative action, discrimination/harassment laws, hate crime and more)
That is not to say that prior administrations, conservative and democratic, didn't have their scandals, but this one certainly takes the cake. I'd very much like to participate in progressive ideas (such as legalizing all drugs), but not with shitting all over the constitution and existing laws and introducing thought-crime and the PC-police into our daily lives. It has come that far that most people do not dare to voice their opinions (not even softly) on social medias if it differs from the progressive mainstream due to fear of repercussions which could ruin their lives. Voltaire would certainly be ashamed of today's "progressivism".

indigenous says

BTW if you write another book I will just TLTR

You're allowed to post a 10 minute video, but he's not allowed to make a thoughtful response?
indigenous says

You don't have a clue about what my perspective is.

That's because you've been brainwashed and so your "perspective" is often muddled and contradictory due to the fact that you don't know what your talking about. Intelligent people with a message that they truly understand have no difficulty communicating it to others. Those people may agree or disagree, but they get the point.

When we don't understand your "perspective" you call us "mutts" and infer that we're too stupid to understand. We're plenty smart enough to understand thoughtful arguments.

dodgerfanjohn says

You just described the opposite of racist belief.

You are one very confused dude(or chick)

Riiiiiiight.

In my opinion you would be very hard pressed to find a white racist that doesn't believe that they judge individuals by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin. And of those racists that say this, many even really do sometimes or very often practice judging individuals on their character (and disregarding their race).

By your very weak definition of what it means to not be a racist you may even almost be right when you say "US society more or less has been a level playing field for all races for 50 years."

The problem is your definition is wrong. OF course everyone in 2014 is capable of jusdging people on far more important attributes than the color of their skin.

The thing is that usually we don't have a lot of information about the content of a persons character. And this information is actually fairly difficult to obtain.

George Zimmerman, who may even have had black friends in his past, had zero information about Trayvon Martins character, and yet he approached him aggressively with a gun, insisting that he comply with him. This was based on a judgement that was not based on the content of Trayvon Martin's character. I believe that he would not have done this had Trayvon been a similarly dressed 16 year old white kid in a hoody.

I'm not trying to rehash the argument, just trying to help you understand what a racist is.

Again, your requirement is far too weak, and is really just an excuse to let yourself off the hook for being a flaming racist.

dodgerfanjohn says

Not havig resided in the US that entire time, and not having grown up here, I have no idea why you'd even bother commenting. Presumably your knowledge on the matter comes from that bastion of unbiased reporting that liberal idiots love so much...the BBC.

And anyway, clearly you took my comments out of context.

Were you alive during the entirety of human existence? Have you lived in every place in every country on the planet all the time and at the same time? Obviously not. But let me guess, you are happy enough to comment on events that you did not see, were not alive for or have not directly experienced.
And in what way did I take your comment out of context? What you actually said was even more ludicrous as you then went on to entirely blame blacks for the issues they face (their cultural flaws and their racism according to you). Perhaps you'd care to explain what context I'm supposed to put that in.

Bigsby says

Were you alive during the entirety of human existence? Have you lived in every place in every country on the planet all the time and at the same time? Obviously not. But let me guess, you are happy enough to comment on events that you did not see, were not alive for or have not directly experienced.

Next time just say "Dodgerfanjohn, you are right. I am not from the US and don't understand fully the racial context and atmosphere of the US. Next time I won't open my limey mouth about it, just listen and observe".

humanity says

In my opinion you would be very hard pressed to find a white racist that doesn't believe that they judge individuals by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin. And of those racists that say this, many even really do sometimes or very often practice judging individuals on their character (and disregarding their race).

Good god you are dense.

dodgerfanjohn says

Bigsby says

Were you alive during the entirety of human existence? Have you lived in every place in every country on the planet all the time and at the same time? Obviously not. But let me guess, you are happy enough to comment on events that you did not see, were not alive for or have not directly experienced.

Next time just say "Dodgerfanjohn, you are right. I am not from the US and don't understand fully the racial context and atmosphere of the US. Next time I won't open my limey mouth about it, just listen and observe".

When I listen and observe, it isn't to someone as clearly ignorant of the facts as you.

Call it Crazy says

Once again, your true racism comes out. Go back and listen to the 911 tapes. Zimmerman at first didn't know what color he was BECAUSE he was wearing a hoodie...

Your racism and hatred of whites comes out loud and clear!!

You're the one that gets all defensive about this when I remind everyone of what's obvious. It's so amazing the length you go to to SUGGEST THAT I'M A RACIST for stating the obvious, that Trayon Martin was murdered, and very likely would not have been if he were white.

dodgerfanjohn says

Good god you are dense.

And yet you are the one that doesn't understand this:

humanity says

The problem is your definition is wrong. OF course everyone in 2014 is capable of judging people on far more important attributes than the color of their skin.

The thing is that usually we don't have a lot of information about the content of a persons character. And this information is actually fairly difficult to obtain.

humanity says

George Zimmerman, who may even have had black friends in his past, had zero information about Trayvon Martins character, and yet he approached him aggressively with a gun, insisting that he comply with him. This was based on a judgement that was not based on the content of Trayvon Martin's character.

It is mind-boggling that anyone can come out these days and still call the TM case murder. Call it excessive force, involuntary manslaughter from your point of view.. all fine. But you must be either delusional or have malintent to call an altercation where the person using deadly force was pinned to the ground and being pounded a (premeditated) murder. And it certainly had ZERO to do with racism, considering that earlier GZ protested a black man's beating by the cops. This is exactly the problem, GZ may be a bit of a whacko, but that doesn't turn a tragic altercation into a murder fueled by racism. And that shit is what everything these days turns into, no matter how far fetched the initial circumstances are, every discussion with self-proclaimed progressives turns either into a case of

1) racism/nazism (godwin's law)

2) genderism/mysogyny (vagina's law, also applicable to gays and transgenders)

3) classism (rich vs poor)

This behavior makes even the few legitimate cases drown in the sea of bullshit of all the fabricated cases. The fact that the GZ tapes were doctored by the media to fuel the outrage shows you how far this bs is being peddled, unnecessarily dividing a nation with fake bullshit made-up social non-issues.

Call it Crazy says

There are no words to describe how racist and biased you are...

NONE!!!

You forgot to say QED or something to that effect at the end of your proof of what a racist I am.

Why do facts bother you so much ?

George Zimmerman had no way of assessing the content of Trayvon Martin's (a teenager) character.

Dan8267 says

You are simply lying. I have no motivation to lie about how I watched the video.

I see no evidence of that, it is more like ok I will reluctancly watch but I really already know what they are going to say. Dan8267 says

indigenous says

Strategist is a self proclaimed librul

Which proves that he is a conservative and a moron. No liberal would use the term librul.

No I have seen him say it.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

oxymoron

Oxymoron means a self-contradicting term like "wise fool". Are you suggesting that most cops are liberal? That's laughable.

You bet, they are good union men.

Dan8267 says

As for Progressiveness, the actions by which the movement has been judged are

1. Banning child labor in factories

2. Worker safety

3. The 40-hour work week

4. The right of women to vote

5. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act

6. Direct election of senators

He did not mention any of those in the video.

Dan8267 says

Empirically means based on historical fact or capable of being verified or disproved by observation independent of any subjectivity.

That is a posteriori and the trouble with empiricism. Read up on it...

Dan8267 says

I'll take the consensus of all the historians and history professors as well as the historical records over your assertion any day.

If that is the case what platform does the individual have to directly communicate to the centralized government?

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

conjecture, it is about freedom, a natural right.

Empirical fact.

A priori fact

Dan8267 says

Even a five-year-old can see this is a false statement, but evidently indigenous cannot.

The statement "zero-sum games cannot exist if any wealth can be created" is empirically false and can be verify by looking at any evidence from any year in our country's history.

The loaded question "if the economy cannot grow than how is it that 100 years ago the GDP was a tiny fraction of todays 17 trillion per year GDP" has no bearing on the conversation as it is a Straw Man argument to say that there has been no economic growth over the past 100 years in the United States. No one has ever, ever argued that.

Complete non sequitur , elephant in a bird cage type thinking.

Dan8267 says

The fact that you used the word sodomize to refer to consensual homosexual acts is definitive proof that you are an anti-gay bigot and thus do not believe in the principle presented by Bill Whittle that people should have "freedom and responsibility".

You would prefer corn hole?

rooemoore says

Intelligent people with a message that they truly understand have no difficulty communicating it to others.

Dan goes off on tangents and adds superfluous ideas.

rooemoore says

We're plenty smart enough to understand thoughtful arguments.

Intelligence is really not the problem it is simply a willingness to listen. And yes I have heard every one your arguments to the point of:

anonymous says

When did politicians of either party have principles that were for the good of the country that they actually lived up to except in word?

George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson,Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower.

But you are right not recently or often. Too many vested interests these days, and to many ignorant voters, got to go with Peter P's nihilistic ideas on this subject.

Excellent, don't look at the issues as they are, in all of the complexity, just keep it at the imbecile level, the creators of the straw man thank you...

indigenous says

Excellent, don't look at the issues as they are, in all of the complexity, just keep it at the imbecile level, the creators of the straw man thank you...

Everything indigenous has said in this thread has been hypocritical. Point out the blatant contradictions of conservatives like anonymous did, and indigenous claims you lack detail. But provide detail analysis like I did, and the troll dismisses the evidence and analysis with trite and inapplicable one-wordism.

indigenous is not interested in serious debate but simply parroting Fox News talking points. He's a conservative shill with no original thought. He's the political conservative's equivalent of David Lereah.

Dan8267 says

But provide detail analysis like I did, and the troll dismisses the evidence and analysis with trite and inapplicable one-wordism.

Sadly I'm sure you believe that is true...

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

But provide detail analysis like I did, and the troll dismisses the evidence and analysis with trite and inapplicable one-wordism.

Sadly I'm sure you believe that is true...

Sadly I'm sure that you do not believe what you say.

Dan8267 says

Sadly I'm sure that you do not believe what you say.

This boys girls is an advanced case of Kool Aid poisoning.

Dan8267 says

As for Progressiveness, the actions by which the movement has been judged are

1. Banning child labor in factories

2. Worker safety

3. The 40-hour work week

4. The right of women to vote

5. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act

6. Direct election of senators

These are all worthwhile and reflect the changes being made at the beginning of the 20th century at the behest of real Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt. Progressives today coast on those accomplishments, but their agenda today has nothing at all to do with that. Their agenda today in the cultural realm is a complete abolishing of everything traditional, especially if it is a component of Judeo-Christianity, to be remade in their image with a secular society. Progressives and the far left have for 45 years been at pains to undermine the traditional husband and wife family for a collection of jerry-rigged relationships that are now so common as to be the norm. Now their big push is for the ultimate undermining of society's foundations in support of gay marriage despite the fact opposite sex marriage has been the standard for thousands of years. In the economic realm, it is the establishment of a European style welfare state with a population dependent upon the government for virtually every necessity or whim of life.

I doubt that TR would have found common ground with such people as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart with their aggressive hatred of Christians and Christianity and their snotty attacks against them and it. It really is new, the hateful fusillades and broadsides against Christianity that come from public figures, the media and its minions. I doubt if there was one degree of difference between the Progressives of 1905 and the most conservative individuals in society. I think TR would have been astounded to find that a profane person like George Carlin would receive applause at the venom he directed toward traditional America in general and Christianity in particular.

P N Dr Lo R says

Progressives today coast on those accomplishments, but their agenda today has nothing at all to do with that.

What the hell is a progressivist of today? The Progressive movement was completed successfully by the early 1920s.

Granted many of the progressive reforms like organized labor and the 40-hour work week have been largely nullified over the past 30 years, but I wouldn't link anyone today with the people who actually were part of the Progressive movement of 1900-1920 anymore than I would associated the pseudo-feminist of the 1970s with the real feminists of the 1910s. The later are just hijacking the name of an older movement.

indigenous says

anonymous says

When did politicians of either party have principles that were for the good of the country that they actually lived up to except in word?

George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson,Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower.

E.g. not since 1960 have we had a president worth a damn.

P N Dr Lo R says

Now their big push is for the ultimate undermining of society's foundations in support of gay marriage despite the fact opposite sex marriage has been the standard for thousands of years.

Um, that's the marriage equality movement, not Progressivism. And yes, marriage equality should exist because of the concept of equality under law, which is exemplified in the 14th Amendment.

Also, the kind of marriage you're talking about has only existed for hundreds, not thousands, of years. For thousands of years marriage was a property contract in which women were owned and men could and did have multiple wives. You want to go back to that?

Also, if longevity of a practice is what determines merit, then marriageless fucking should be the norm. After all, for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS people have fucked without marriage at all. So, I just trumped you on the oldest and longest tradition argument.

To summarize:
1. 3.8 billion years
All your ancestors are fucking without marriage and with multiple partners
2. 200,000 years or more
Modern human beings are fucking without marriage
3. 20,000 years
Marriage is a contract between two men where one man owns the other man's daughter. The man can have as many wives, i.e. property, as he can afford.
4. 114-1200 years depending on the region
Marriage is an oral contract with a fictitious god between one man and one woman. Typically this contract is made in a bar. Yes, a bar, not a church.

Mormons continue to practice polygamy until 1890 when they were forced to abandon it by the federal government in a blatant violation of the First Amendment and the very concept of religious freedom.

In America, you are free to practice any religion the federal government approves of.

Finally, give me one reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to file a joint tax return, but a straight couple should be?

If you want marriage to be defined by YOUR religion, then you should lobby to get all marriage laws revoked and remove the word marriage from all legislation. As long as our laws use the word marriage, gay marriage must be legally recognize. If you want the word marriage to be owned by your religion then the word cannot be used in legislation because your religion does not get to write our secular laws.

New Renter says

E.g. not since 1960 have we had a president worth a damn.

E.g. Republicans have been worthless since they embraced The Southern Strategy and indigenous won't acknowledge the success of modern Democratic presidents like Kennedy and Clinton because the success of the other side can never be acknowledged.

Dan8267 says

E.g. Republicans have been worthless since they embraced The Southern Strategy

The democrats are the ones who established the KKK.

A political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic Party as continuations of the Confederacy

1. Banning child labor in factories

This idea is an anachronism, back then children worked because the family had to to survive, like they do today in 3rd world countries. Attributing this to capitalism is a straw man. BTW the worse fate is to watch your child die of starvation.

2. Worker safety

The sole purveyor of safety is technology, the idea that government provides safety is absurd and a charade. Technology was improving safety before OSHA even existed

3. The 40-hour work week

Again this is solely because of technology. Previously a farmer had to work 100 hr a week, along comes the tractor and the hours required to get the work done were less

4. The right of women to vote

According to Anne Coulter this was a mistake, and is what has led to today's excessive progressivism.

5. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act

Another pretend organization. Look out how long it took to reign in cigarette makers advertising, the next big thing will antidepressants as they correlate to school shooting, yet this never makes the news. Here one of your very own mutts even admits it, of course it never occurs to him that the FDA did not do it's job.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/04UqzYOdGNs

6. Direct election of senators

This is the unkindest cut of all. The United States is a Republic, this is the only thing that protects individual from the tyranny of the democracy. It has been a Big reason why the US has been on the decline ever since it's passing along with the other thing that passed at the same time called the Federal Reserve bank.

The best thing the US could do is erase everything done by Woodrow Wilson, a complete sociopath. And you dance around his "accomplishments" as if they are something to be proud of. You sorry son of a bitch...

indigenous says

The democrats are the ones who established the KKK.

Conservatives established the KKK. They moved over from the democratic party to the republican party after the civil rights act. You have to know this, so you are just blowing smoke with this democrat vs republican straw man.

indigenous says

2. Worker safety

The sole purveyor of safety is technology, the idea that government provides safety is absurd and a charade. Technology was improving safety before OSHA even existed

Laws to improve worker safety existed long before OSHA starting with the Massachusetts Factory Act of 1877. Either you know you are bullshitting or your ignorance of the subject matter invalidates your right to comment on the issue. You could read this http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970/ which nicely gives a pre osha history of workplace safety regulations or you could just keep talking out of your anal orifice. Why did you pick 1933 instead of going back to before safety laws first started?

indigenous says

5. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act

Another pretend organization

You've obviously never read The Jungle . Roosevelt (that would be teddy) thought sinclair was bullshitting (like you) with the jungle so he sent a team out to actually do surprise inspections at chicago meat packers. After getting the report back he was so disgusted he pushed through the Meat Inspection Act as fast as he could. Even today there are plenty of meat packers that cut as many corners as they think they can get away with whenever inspectors aren't looking.

bob2356 says

Conservatives established the KKK. They moved over from the democratic party to the republican party after the civil rights act. You have to know this, so you are just blowing smoke with this democrat vs republican straw man.

Bullshit, look it up it were the Ds

bob2356 says

aws to improve worker safety existed long before OSHA starting with the Massachusetts Factory Act of 1877.

From your article:

"Largely independent changes in technology and labor markets also contributed to safety as well."

"Aldrich, Mark. Safety First: Technology, Labor and Business in the Building of Work Safety, 1870-1939. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997."

"Aldrich, Mark. “Preventing ‘The Needless Peril of the Coal Mine’: the Bureau of Mines and the Campaign Against Coal Mine Explosions, 1910-1940.” Technology and Culture 36, no. 3 (1995): 483-518."

"Hounshell, David. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984."

"Rosenberg, Nathan. Technology and American Economic Growth. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Analyzes the forces shaping American technology."

Lot of use of the word technology, you have not shown that it came from the safety programs.

One example of many:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/fq3o0VGUh50

This was purely technology it had nothing to do with OSHA

bob2356 says

You've obviously never read The Jungle . Roosevelt (that would be teddy) thought sinclair was bullshitting (like you) with the jungle so he sent a team out to actually do surprise inspections at chicago meat packers. After getting the report back he was so disgusted he pushed through the Meat Inspection Act as fast as he could. Even today there are plenty of meat packers that cut as many corners as they think they can get away with whenever inspectors aren't looking.

Yes Teddy had his fingers into plenty, I especially liked his work with the pretend monopoly that he slayed like Don Quixote.

Do you suppose there was any chance that people would have said hmm this meat is tainted and green and makes me sick and would have just said I'm not buying your meat anymore?

Currently we have had the FDA doing nothing about cigarette advertising at all and only after an informer turned them in was anything done. The FDA is feeble and probably in bed with the cronies like Phillip Morris and Eli Lilly. Watch the the Michael Moore video it is only 5 minutes. Where the fuck is the FDA on that matter? I would guess bought off because they are a pretend agency.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Conservatives established the KKK. They moved over from the democratic party to the republican party after the civil rights act. You have to know this, so you are just blowing smoke with this democrat vs republican straw man.

Bullshit, look it up it were the Ds

Yes and who were the D's in 1866 south of the mason dixon line? Conservatives. Who were the D's in 1965 south of the mason dixon line when the civil rights act passed. Conservatives. The title of YOUR post? 5 CONSERVATIVE principles. Don't duck the fact that one of the bedrocks principles for conservatives for well over 100 years (and continuing today in many places) was racism.

indigenous says

From your article:

"Largely independent changes in technology and labor markets also contributed to safety as well."

Absolutely. Unlike someone as intellectually dishonest as you I recognize that there are many factors. I certainly didn't say safety laws were the ONLY reason safety improved. I said laws existed.to improve worker safety long before OSHA. Laws that were on the books and being enforced during the entire period of your disingenuous chart. You are the one saying OSHA was the start of safety laws.

indigenous says

Do you suppose there was any chance that people would have said hmm this meat is tainted and green and makes me sick and would have just said I'm not buying your meat anymore?

You either are unaware that ecoli and other products of unsanitary meat handling are tasteless or you are just being dishonest again. I choose the latter.

indigenous says

Currently we have had the FDA doing nothing about cigarette advertising at all and only after an informer turned them in was anything done. The FDA is feeble and probably in bed with the cronies like Phillip Morris and Eli Lilly. Watch the the Michael Moore video it is only 5 minutes. Where the fuck is the FDA on that matter? I would guess bought off because they are a pretend agency.

WTF happened to all your libertarian principles? You are now saying the FDA doesn't do enough regulation? Libertarians believe in no regulation at all. Let the free market and informed consumers sort it out. Which are you?

bob2356 says

Yes and who were the D's in 1866 south of the mason dixon line? Conservatives. Who were the D's in 1965 south of the mason dixon line when the civil rights act passed. Conservatives. The title of YOUR post? 5 CONSERVATIVE principles. Don't duck the fact that one of the bedrocks principles for conservatives for well over 100 years (and continuing today in many places) was racism.

Citation please

bob2356 says

Absolutely. Unlike someone as intellectually dishonest as you I recognize that there are many factors. I certainly didn't say safety laws were the ONLY reason safety improved. I said laws existed.to improve worker safety long before OSHA. Laws that were on the books and being enforced during the entire period of your disingenuous chart. You are the one saying OSHA was the start of safety laws.

No, you failed to show a correlation of safety agencies to a decline in accidents.

bob2356 says

indigenous says

Do you suppose there was any chance that people would have said hmm this meat is tainted and green and makes me sick and would have just said I'm not buying your meat anymore?

You either are unaware that ecoli and other products of unsanitary meat handling are tasteless or you are just being dishonest again. I choose the latter.

same answer, if the customer gets sick they quit buying.

bob2356 says

WTF happened to all your libertarian principles? You are now saying the FDA doesn't do enough regulation? Libertarians believe in no regulation at all. Let the free market and informed consumers sort it out. Which are you?

I guess I'm going a little fast for you, I'm saying the FDA is a pretend agency that does not do their job. We would be better off with something like consumer reports that does this function.

indigenous says

No, you failed to show a correlation of safety agencies to a decline in accidents.

And you said the improvement in safety was SOLELY down to technology, something which you have clearly failed to demonstrate.

indigenous says

3. The 40-hour work week

Again this is solely because of technology. Previously a farmer had to work 100 hr a week, along comes the tractor and the hours required to get the work done were less

And again, it isn't. Technology can cut the time of production, but so what? That doesn't in of itself create 40 hour work weeks. I could just as easily argue that you can continue to have 100 hour work weeks and simply cut the labour force proportionately.