Fox News: Fair and Balanced

TheBig3 · 03-02-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

The laissez-faire system can't favor anybody because no one is doing anything extra for anybody. Think about what "favoring" is for a second. One group of people does benefit under laissez-faire, but to say that the underclass is stuck in the underclass is just another Marxist myth. Monopolies are created by government intervention. You claim that capitalism is something that will halt productivity and such, yet all the areas in history where the economy was more capitalist lead to prosperous times. The Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, and the times of the Robber Barons/Captains of Industry. More innovation and such occurred during these times. The government intervention is what lead to people experiencing all the trouble. Labor unions were banned at one point in American history. Technically, the businessmen who proposed this were not wrong at all though because anti-trust laws were forced upon them.

Government created monopolies.

The Industrial Revolution was "prosperous times"?

Explain any of this. We had 8 year olds chained to poorly constructed machinery. Are you saying monopolies wouldn't be created if no one stepped in?

Inuzuka Skysword · 03-02-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Explain any of this. We had 8 year olds chained to poorly constructed machinery. Are you saying monopolies wouldn't be created if no one stepped in?

No one would have been chained to anything if the government did its job. If anyone initiates force in the form of chaining someone to something that would be considered a crime. However, if it is in the contract that you agree to be chained and such, then it is not wrong because you agreed to it. The government didn't enforce common laws against the businesses because Social Darwinism was so big at the time. I don't believe sweatshops or any of the sort is wrong in any way. If someone agrees to work ten cents and hour and work long days, then they agree to it. What am I violating?

At the time of the industrial revolution there were many advances in technology. Compared to times that were less capitalist, there was a substantial amount. That is what I mean by prosperous. People were able to rise to the top if they played their cards right. It still wasn't really capitalist though because you still had slavery going on and taxes and such.

Now to answer the question above, government created monopolies:

There has never been laissez-faire capitalism. Every time a monopoly was created it is because the government favored businesses in some way. Look at today with the insurance companies. There are so many restrictions on small business insurance companies that no one can really enter or do anything. That is what I am talking about. Of course there are really no true monopolies that I know of today, but some come very close.

I am not against labor unions or anything like that. In fact, I am strongly for labor unions because they can check the power of large businesses that can become corrupt. However, labor unions back then decided to turn to violence as their answer. This ruined the credibility of labor unions at the time. Then they were banned, which is turn favored big business.

dac · 03-02-2009, 11:44 PM

Does someone want to explain to me how CNN and others ARE fair and balanced?

sleepy jack · 03-03-2009, 12:32 AM

If you want to talk about myths, let's talk about Adam Smith's unseen hand. Manufacturers did rig the market place and monopolies were created. The government didn't regulate and their "intervention" (I love how vague you always are when it comes to talking about the intervention) had nothing to do with it. A laissez-faire society drifts towards bigness and fewness as only the most successful businesses succeed (and they usually end up monopolizing their respective industries.) A laissez-faire society also creates extremeness in terms of class position which are inherited, as the poor send their kids off to poor schools and the rich to rich schools and universities (and education does equal better job and success in life.) Your idea that a completely free market is oh so perfect and moral good just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the combination of human greed and ambition.

boo boo · 04-17-2009, 09:25 PM

Man, this whole tea party thing has to be the most elaborate FoxNews hoax is in quite a while.

I can't believe Fox actually expects us to believe it's a grass roots movement when they have been hyping it 24/7, they even put their freaking name on it, yet they're "not" endorsing it.

Antonio · 04-17-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

i have a horrifying feeling that rush limbaugh is prepping himself up for a run for congress. And that he could win.

Or if god really hates us, president.

ಠ_ಠ

boo boo · 04-17-2009, 09:50 PM

Bush was too moderate, so were other Republicans in congress.

What the party needs now is a really hardcore super bigoted motherf*cker to round up their supporting base of white, church going southerners. Rush seems to be thinking about running at least, he has the biggest personality cult of all the right wing pundits, he's THE mouthpiece of the neo conservative dominated Republican party, and I wouldn't count him out.

boo boo · 04-17-2009, 10:05 PM

No, but I have reason to believe he would be run (Pat Robertson did, so lets not count anyone out) and why wouldn't the neo cons back him? He's Rush Limbaugh. Would they care that he doesn't have any executive experience of any kind? Probably not.

People are really hyping Palin for 2012, so I don't think anything is too ridiculous for the republican party at this point. Moderates or traditional fiscal conservatives are certainly not gonna get the Republicans back into the white house.

boo boo · 04-17-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

and Sarah Palin is? come on. i think you're overevaluating the stupidity even of the neocons. with this whole financial meltdown they're more likely to push some traditional fiscal conservative than anyone, don't you think? kinda like how Nixon, a Republican, came in and ****ed everything up (Bush), so everyone turned to the Democrats and elected Jimmy Carter, only to see the economy get ten times worse (Obama), and then who'd we get for eight years? history does tend to repeat itself, especially in a place like America where it seems everyone's utterly incapable of learning from past mistakes.

First off, thank you for not insulting me.

And you make a good point, I'm just saying it's a possibility, I'm not saying anything is definite, I don't claim to know a lot.

Yukon Cornelius · 04-17-2009, 10:44 PM

Ron Paul??

03-02-2009, 11:44 PM	#23 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	Does someone want to explain to me how CNN and others ARE fair and balanced? __________________

04-17-2009, 10:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
Yukon Cornelius Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 625	Ron Paul?? __________________ Attempting to find a cure for Stupid...

03-03-2009, 12:32 AM	#24 (permalink)
sleepy jack isfckingdead Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 18,967	If you want to talk about myths, let's talk about Adam Smith's unseen hand. Manufacturers did rig the market place and monopolies were created. The government didn't regulate and their "intervention" (I love how vague you always are when it comes to talking about the intervention) had nothing to do with it. A laissez-faire society drifts towards bigness and fewness as only the most successful businesses succeed (and they usually end up monopolizing their respective industries.) A laissez-faire society also creates extremeness in terms of class position which are inherited, as the poor send their kids off to poor schools and the rich to rich schools and universities (and education does equal better job and success in life.) Your idea that a completely free market is oh so perfect and moral good just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the combination of human greed and ambition.