America first

[Bible_Belt]

All known leftist companies with leftist leadership.

I can see how viewing the world from a radically far-right fringe perspective would make you say such a thing.

If Goldman Sachs is leftist, why does Trump keep picking their people for cabinet and appointee positions? He has chosen at least six former Goldman employees. Is Trump too liberal for you?

 

[Bible_Belt]

You just called the following companies "leftist"
Amazon
Apple
Bank of America
Berkshire Hathaway
Campbell Soup
Citigroup
Dow Chemical
DuPont
eBay
Facebook
Gap
General Mills
General Motors
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
Google
The Hartford
HP
Hilton
Intel
Johnson & Johnson
Kellogg
Microsoft
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Nike
NRG Energy
PG&E
Salesforce
Staples
Starbucks
Symantec
Walmart
Wells Fargo

Monsanto is leftist? All those banks are, too? That's a radical, far-right viewpoint, assuming you understand what the term leftist means. But I am wondering if perhaps you never took political science 101. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words you are using.

 

[Red Legg]

Ossoff just lost in Georgia AMERICA FIRST !!

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Ossoff just lost in Georgia AMERICA FIRST !!

Democrats are excellent at losing these days. Keep it up you pieces of $hit.

 

[Trunks]

It's not right vs left, conservative vs liberal, or Repub vs Dem. That's what the unelected bureaucracy is selling you. It is military/corporations/politician cronies vs the people.

 

[Bible_Belt]

https://www.ecowatch.com/india-coal-mines-close-2446931737.html

World's Biggest Coal Company Closes 37 Mines as Solar Prices Plummet

 

[Von]

Funny how the republicans were the most ''environment friendly'' until the coal mines started closing and Koch brothers who own them... started getting involved.

Anyway, what you think of Trump presidency ?

Alot of executive orders to launch projets... projets who are blocked by his own party... but at least they are the pipeline.

As a Canadian, I feel things are ''moving'' in the political world of the USA compared to Canada or previous USA administration.

Oh and no media loves Trump... 3 articles daily bash him lol. Media have nothing to do...

According to Bloomberg, USA went down again the ''Human Development Index''.

Anyway, what you think of Trump presidency, so far?

 

[Von]

Like many of you guys, I believe global warming was a BS conspiracy. I believed in the NWO globalist agenda nonsense. I believed in Skull n bones. I believed in bilderberg. I believed in the crap Alex Jones. I believed in 9/11 being an inside job. I believed in the freemason conspiracy. I believed the fed conspiracy.

But I was 16 and it was a way to entertain myself. You know what happened? I grew the fvck up and learned how to critically think better and learned how to better sort through information.

Honestly, looking back at my old self, even as a younger person, I am ashamed of the crap I believed.

I would say leaving the Paris Agreement was a good move.

Nothing to do with technology and stuff.

It's just about signing something you didn't plan on following anyway... hey in 1992... the Kyoto Accord was saying the same thing.... no countries respected the Accord except Japan (and even that)

Paris Agreement was just a way to create a ''green bureaucracy''.... handled by associations paid by taxes in political agendas to monitor the evolution of the world and a few banks who will be able to have CarbonTrade Swap (new financial tool).

Since Trump got out, alot of countries are sneaking out by the back door too.

It was also a way to say to France and Germany that their ''foreign policy'' wasn't a good idea.

The world is indeed getting cleaner in the ''modern world''. Hopefully, it will continue.

However... thing about this: If everyone is so concerned about the environment, why no one is paying to ''save'' it and are all buying SUV instead (in Canada SUV have jumped 100% in sales, more SUV are sold than cars... yet we have less kids, more urban center, more public transportation, more ''electric cars'')

 

[usernamedox11]

Since you agree what I said in my first paragraph, then we agree that taking money from taxpayers to fund ineffective and unprofitable schemes is a waste of resources.

No, I never agreed with that. I just didn't address it. Sometimes developing sectors and industries are unprofitable and need the government to fund them at first before they become profitable because investors wouldn't want to wait so long for a return. Space travel is an example of this. It isn't till now that commercial space travel and delivery will be a thing, and it needed tax dollars at first because there is no way it would have been profitable for a very long time.

There's no simple ideology that answers all questions.

 

[usernamedox11]

Bible_belt, these people have been brainwashed by conspiratard libertarians on the internet for 10+ years. You will not get through to them. These people don't care about facts or logic, just what feels emotionally satisfying to them as they found a simple enough ideology (the free market and extremely limited government will solve all our problems) that gives them comfort. They don't care about facts or nuance. Just look at Von's nonsensical post that danger liked.

 

[usernamedox11]

You think the free market would not have conquered space travel???

It wouldn't have happened anywhere near as soon as it would have if it weren't for the government funding it and taking all the risks in the beginning. Investors wouldn't have pumped so much money into an industry if profits would not be seen for over 100 years. Space travel is still not profitable. Even though it is still not profitable, the knowledge we gained from it is invaluable.

With all due respect - if they are unprofitable, there is a reason. There's no reason for government to be investing in industry with your money. Are you incapable of deciding for yourself what to invest in? I'm sure we could all do with "tax dollars" from the government. If you can't figure out what to do with your money, give it to me and I'll cut you a sweeter deal than Uncle Sam.

Whether or not something is initially profitable is not the only criteria for ascertaining the value of something. Space travel is of incredible importance to human civilization as a whole. Space travel is not the only example. Federal funding financed many of the our early digital computers, computer time-sharing, and the internet (which created so much wealth and jobs). In the 60s, most people could have ever imagined why your regular joe would have ever owned a computer.

The free market is incredibly useful for so many things. For example, people in Los Angeles don't wake up wondering if the bakeries will have their favorite bread. There is no central bread/flour czar making sure LA has all the flour but everyone gets what they need through the invisible hand of the free market. In fact, it would probably work a lot worse with some Bread Czar managing it.

However, the free market doesn't solve all problems. Sometimes government is necessary. I am a classical liberal in the sense that I believe in as limited a government as possible but also acknowledge the shortcomings of the free market.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, we learned nothing from traveling space, obviously. How could any moron think we actually learned or developed anything of value from space exploration? Anyway, I just had a phone call with one of the Rothschilds. He is one of the top ranking members of the NWO. He told me he is on to you. He is coming for you. Be very careful.

 

[usernamedox11]

I am asking you specifically what we have learned and what have we done with it.

Now you are making it personal by attacking me.

Seriously, you and other socialists like you cannot stop yourselves from making personal attacks when you are asked to justify your position.

Why is that?

What is so valuable about "space travel" that we HAD TO HAVE IT funded by government amd still have yet to really do anything with it decades later?

Wouldn't that money have been better spent by letting the free market determine what needed investment money?

You don't know what the definition of "socialist" is. Again, you are displaying your ignorance. And I've never once seen you justify ANY of your positions on this forum with actual facts, logic or reason. I've never seen a post of yours that included any depth, nuance, or logic.

You are not a serious person. You're a conspiracy theorist. You are the antithesis of Occam's Razor. If you haven't heard of all the discoveries of NASA or even heard of all the spin-off technologies that NASA invented that made it to the free market, you are just ignorant. Don't you think it's embarrassing you even have to ask me that? A 7th grader that paid attention in school could answer that question. You don't get it. There's no point in having a discussion with you. You're just a conspiratard ideologue. You're like a car alarm going off in the parking lot. You should just be ignored. Having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with a homeless person that suffers from schizophrenia. There is no point. Again, there is zero point in respectfully engaging with you as you've shown in your vapid posts that you do not warrant any intellectual respect. Quite frankly, you've proven quite the opposite with all the drivel you've peddled all over the forum. Conspiratards like you are an abomination.

Please stop acting like you deserve respect or that you deserve to be taken seriously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

(this explains your existence)

By the way, in case you were really that ignorant: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

That list does not even touch all the discoveries NASA actually made about our Universe and Solar System.

Anyway, Danger, this is the last time I engage with you because you are just a dumb turd.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, the only reason I saw your post is because I refreshed this when I wasn't logged in.

Danger, you asked for the benefits of the space program, and I gave them. Now you realize you were wrong for attacking NASA on that front. Now you are attacking NASA's costs. Now you are saying NASA isn't worth it because there were costs, even though the benefits far outweigh the costs. I guess you do this because there is no way you will concede government can ever be good as it goes against your stupid ideology. You realize how minuscule NASA's budget is compared to our total budget is, right? For one, space travel is of enormous importance to humanity as we will one day need to colonize space to prolong our survival as a species. Second of all, a lot the technologies NASA invented made their way to the free market and created new industries and wealth that otherwise might have not existed. According to economists, every $1 spent on Nasa adds $10 to the economy. Clearly, NASA benefits the free-market. Again, you make a STUPID fvcking point. Please explain what "free-market needs" were not met because of NASA'S approx $400 million dollar budget out of a total US budget of approx 530 billion in 1961? You are saying NASA fvcked with the market in bad way (it didn't) and took necessary money away from the market (it didn't). Please demonstrate how NASA did this and why this was of negative consequence to the greater good? Please provide concrete examples of how NASA did this in the year 1961. Please illustrate what industries in 1961 suffered as a result of NASA and how these industries were of more benefit to humanity than NASA'S research.

You cannot base your budget or value on what would be most profitable in the private market. Using that line of logic, it would make more sense for the government to invest their money in the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians than it would be to spend tax dollars on space travel.

Even complete morons support space travel. So I guess you're a minority within that group, too.

 

[usernamedox11]

Hey Danger. Wonder why CNN keeps talking about Trump and Russia collusion instead of doing honest journalism? That's the free-market at work. They're getting damn good ratings. CNN is another example of some of the shortcomings of the free-market.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, again, the value of NASA was demonstrated. If you are talking purely economical, new industries and wealth were created as a result of NASA and every $1 put into NASA generates $10 in the economy. In pure economic terms, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Now you are saying this doesn't matter because it took money away from other hypothetical sciences and corporations that would have been of greater importance/benefit. Okay, if you believe that to be the case, prove it. Explain what NASA interfered with and how it hurt science and the economy as a whole despite all of NASA's scientific and technological discoveries and contributions to the free market? I wish you luck as this is a tall task. This is your point, explain your point with facts. (honestly it is preposterous we are even having discussion)


Also, if you consider NASA to be "socialism," you realize the military is "socialism," too?

Although I would argue that isn't a weakness of capitalism, but more a weakness of people and their general inability to think critically on a subject.

The thing is people are part of the free market. They are actors in the free market.

Also I don't hate the free market. Like I explained earlier, I am a classical liberal. I believe in the free market and believe in as limited a government as possible within reason. There are shortcomings within the free market so I believe in using government to deal with these shortcomings where possible. But I like the free market. For example, I don't agree with minimum wage because of its artificial manipulation of price. I think we can find a better solution to increasing living standards than a minimum wage (many respected free-market economists generally share my point of view).

 

[Bible_Belt]

 

[usernamedox11]

Great vid, bible_belt. I've never seen it before.

The problem is whenever you point to the successes of government, it goes against the American Libertarian ideology of government being bad. This is why many nonacademic Libertarians are conspiracy theorists. They must explain away the need for government necessity with conspiracy theory. Libertarians make the assumption that all actors in the market are rational and this is why it works so well ALL THE TIME. Yet, we have danger explaining that people who watch CNN are the problem because they are irrational. So clearly, not all actors in the free market are rational, at least according to Danger. Danger also wants the supreme court to step in and stop CNN from peddling Russian fear mongering propaganda. However, what is more free market than that? CNN, under perfect freedom, should be free to say whatever the fvck they want and people should be completely free to believe or disbelieve CNN. This obviously points to a shortcoming of the free market. Instead of blaming free market, Danger somehow separated people from the market and indirectly supported regulating CNN with government in order to get the result he wants. But I thought government interference into the market is bad? Oh, it's good when it does something you personally like, even if it goes against your desire for a completely hands off government approach to the market. Basically, danger conceded we need the government to regulate the market because it isn't perfect on its own, all without realizing he did.

 

[usernamedox11]

It's not slander or libel, though. When you have government agencies saying Russia interfered in the elections combined with CNN only talking about possible Trump collusion and Mueller investigating Trump for possible collusion, it's hard to call it libel, even if they are just exaggerating for ratings and viewers.

 

[usernamedox11]

You can thank the Reagan Administration getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine for that.