Tea Party Democrats

[PLAYER57832]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

It is not an assumption, it is what is actually happening.
Courts are irrelevant when facing corporatios that can hire the best attorneys, can afford to simply dilly dally and delay any decision.. then fight it until the "winners" are all dead anyway.

Courts are utterly irreleavant when you have already lost your house, gotten cancer or watched your children get sick due to pollution that companies keep insisting "really doesn't matter as much as those stupid environmentalists claim.. and anyway, we need jobs!".

[BigBallinStalin]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

It is not an assumption, it is what is actually happening.
Courts are irrelevant when facing corporatios that can hire the best attorneys, can afford to simply dilly dally and delay any decision.. then fight it until the "winners" are all dead anyway.

Courts are utterly irreleavant when you have already lost your house, gotten cancer or watched your children get sick due to pollution that companies keep insisting "really doesn't matter as much as those stupid environmentalists claim.. and anyway, we need jobs!".

Player, courts do matter. If courts didn't matter, then one should expect the same behavior from corporations in a scenario where there are no courts at all.

Of course, the behavior would worsen in the short-run; therefore, your logic is stupid.

[BigBallinStalin]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.

Another bold assumption!

Yeah, there's no consequences for severely polluting rivers in the US, and there's no such thing as class-action suits or any means of enforcement, punishment, and compensation. Because, if the government is reduced in size, then ALL THESE THINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! [insert SNORRI's CANADIAN WAR CRY!][/sarcasm]

[Timminz]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.

Another bold assumption!

Yeah, there's no consequences for severely polluting rivers in the US, and there's no such thing as class-action suits or any means of enforcement, punishment, and compensation. Because, if the government is reduced in size, then ALL THESE THINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! [insert SNORRI's CANADIAN WAR CRY!][/sarcasm]

Since when did the Dutch start using the Canadian War Cry?

[PLAYER57832]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

It is not an assumption, it is what is actually happening.
Courts are irrelevant when facing corporatios that can hire the best attorneys, can afford to simply dilly dally and delay any decision.. then fight it until the "winners" are all dead anyway.

Courts are utterly irreleavant when you have already lost your house, gotten cancer or watched your children get sick due to pollution that companies keep insisting "really doesn't matter as much as those stupid environmentalists claim.. and anyway, we need jobs!".

Player, courts do matter. If courts didn't matter, then one should expect the same behavior from corporations in a scenario where there are no courts at all.

yes, of course courts matter some. However, they don't matter enough to really and truly keep companies from doing very, very very bad things... be it Enron, Massy Energy, the mortgage securities debacle or BP OIl.. and if there were no regulation, it would be even worse.

Of course, the behavior would worsen in the short-run; therefore, your logic is stupid.

No, what is wrong is your statement that we were making assumptions that their behavior was wrong. I realize you were being half sarcastic, but that is the point I was countering.

[BigBallinStalin]

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.

Another bold assumption!

Yeah, there's no consequences for severely polluting rivers in the US, and there's no such thing as class-action suits or any means of enforcement, punishment, and compensation. Because, if the government is reduced in size, then ALL THESE THINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! [insert SNORRI's CANADIAN WAR CRY!][/sarcasm]

Since when did the Dutch start using the Canadian War Cry?

I like to picture Snorri as Canada's only consistently angry Canadian.

Please, don't ruin my ideal Snorri with reality.

[BigBallinStalin]

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

It is not an assumption, it is what is actually happening.
Courts are irrelevant when facing corporatios that can hire the best attorneys, can afford to simply dilly dally and delay any decision.. then fight it until the "winners" are all dead anyway.

Courts are utterly irreleavant when you have already lost your house, gotten cancer or watched your children get sick due to pollution that companies keep insisting "really doesn't matter as much as those stupid environmentalists claim.. and anyway, we need jobs!".

Player, courts do matter. If courts didn't matter, then one should expect the same behavior from corporations in a scenario where there are no courts at all.

yes, of course courts matter some. However, they don't matter enough to really and truly keep companies from doing very, very very bad things... be it Enron, Massy Energy, the mortgage securities debacle or BP OIl.. and if there were no regulation, it would be even worse.

Of course, the behavior would worsen in the short-run; therefore, your logic is stupid.

No, what is wrong is your statement that we were making assumptions that their behavior was wrong. I realize you were being half sarcastic, but that is the point I was countering.

He made a bold assumption, and you said something really silly, so get over it.

I didn't say that "their behavior was wrong." Read what I outlined about the assumption being made... then compare that to Snorri's comment. Do I have to keep showing you how the square pieces fit into the square holes, or do you want to throw the complex puzzle game away?

Jesus, you make the same assumption too. (see your response, underlined).

Haha, it's funny seeing what you said. "It isn't an assumption; it's what's actually happening." Right, total anarchy, no rules, no court system, sure, player, sure.

[Woodruff]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.

Another bold assumption!

Yeah, there's no consequences for severely polluting rivers in the US, and there's no such thing as class-action suits or any means of enforcement, punishment, and compensation. Because, if the government is reduced in size, then ALL THESE THINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! [insert SNORRI's CANADIAN WAR CRY!][/sarcasm]

Actually, the ability to file class action suits is rapidly disappearing.

[Snorri1234]

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.

Another bold assumption!

Yeah, there's no consequences for severely polluting rivers in the US, and there's no such thing as class-action suits or any means of enforcement, punishment, and compensation. Because, if the government is reduced in size, then ALL THESE THINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! [insert SNORRI's CANADIAN WAR CRY!][/sarcasm]

Well aren't we talking about a reduced government where ALL THESE THINGS DISAPPEAR?

The whole reason there are environmental and health laws is because a class action suit doesn't work. Unless we start with adding requirements for judges to include a good understanding of physics, chemistry and statistics any fucking lawsuit is going to go nowhere.

In fact, lawsuits already go nowhere because settling the case at the moment is better for both parties. If we change from "oh there are rules about our pollution" to "we can't pollute so that enough people affected stand up, press for a lawsuit and beat us beyond reasonable doubt and also they can do that in a manner which means our increased profits can't cover that" I predict a mess.


I'm all for a discussion about whether or not a struggle with corporations is shifting in a balance right now, but the idea that all the fucking work towards less power towards the corporations (be it unions or laws) is superfluous is fucking ridiculous.

[PLAYER57832]

WEll, welcome to the world of a large number of Tea Partiers.. snorri. "reduce taxes, reduce government.. and that will mean corporation have less control"

[Snorri1234]

WEll, welcome to the world of a large number of Tea Partiers.. snorri. "reduce taxes, reduce government.. and that will mean corporation have less control"

oh I'm well aware of the utter insanity behind it, I just like the feeling of being right simply for not promoting that insanity.

[john9blue]

WEll, welcome to the world of a large number of Tea Partiers.. snorri. "reduce taxes, reduce government.. and that will mean corporation have less control"

oh I'm well aware of the utter insanity behind it, I just like the feeling of being right simply for not promoting that insanity.

lucky you. i wish i knew what it was like to always be right about everything, ever. must be nice in your world.

[Snorri1234]

WEll, welcome to the world of a large number of Tea Partiers.. snorri. "reduce taxes, reduce government.. and that will mean corporation have less control"

oh I'm well aware of the utter insanity behind it, I just like the feeling of being right simply for not promoting that insanity.

lucky you. i wish i knew what it was like to always be right about everything, ever. must be nice in your world.

oh I'm rarely if ever right about everything. It's just that when dealing with certain groups (teapers, juggalos, communists) I can side with the party that doesn't advocate insane shit.


Like with this whole "debt-ceiling". I could laugh at you for even having such a thing, but I find it far more rewarding to go with the side that doesn't advocate the complete destruction of society.

[thegreekdog]

WEll, welcome to the world of a large number of Tea Partiers.. snorri. "reduce taxes, reduce government.. and that will mean corporation have less control"

oh I'm well aware of the utter insanity behind it, I just like the feeling of being right simply for not promoting that insanity.

lucky you. i wish i knew what it was like to always be right about everything, ever. must be nice in your world.

oh I'm rarely if ever right about everything. It's just that when dealing with certain groups (teapers, juggalos, communists) I can side with the party that doesn't advocate insane shit.


Like with this whole "debt-ceiling". I could laugh at you for even having such a thing, but I find it far more rewarding to go with the side that doesn't advocate the complete destruction of society.

Wow... bold, smug, and no evidence? That sounds like a winning combination! I bet you're a hit with the ladies.

[thegreekdog looks at snorri's avatar]

Wait... don't hit me...

[thegreekdog]

Actually, the ability to file class action suits is rapidly disappearing.

Really? How do you figure? Was there a law change I didn't hear about?

Seriously, I'm asking.

[Phatscotty]

Corporations will be free to create more jobs once government gets out of the way

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, the ability to file class action suits is rapidly disappearing.

Really? How do you figure? Was there a law change I didn't hear about?

Seriously, I'm asking.

More and more classes are being ruled "not classes".

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations will be free to create more jobs once government gets out of the way

Exactly like at the turn of the century....

[Woodruff]

Actually, the ability to file class action suits is rapidly disappearing.

Really? How do you figure? Was there a law change I didn't hear about?

Seriously, I'm asking.

Court rulings, actually. I can't recall the specifics off-hand, but yes...there is no doubt in my mind that the ability to file class action suits will not be around much longer. Let me do some digging today when I get home from work and I'll point it out to you.

[Woodruff]

Corporations will be free to create more jobs once government gets out of the way

Corporations aren't job creators. Purchasing power is the job creator. I'm not kidding at all.

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations will be free to create more jobs once government gets out of the way

Corporations aren't job creators. Purchasing power is the job creator. I'm not kidding at all.

Which is precisely why our economy is moving into the tank. People no longer have as much money to spend and when they do, are no longer entirely buying into the ad hype of "gotta have xyz".. saving a bit more, etc. instead of going out and "doing their patriotic duty of buying, buying, buying".

Of course China is now a ready market, so what do the big companies really care?

[thegreekdog]

People no longer have as much money to spend and when they do, are no longer entirely buying into the ad hype of "gotta have xyz".. saving a bit more, etc

Good. I don't know if this is true or not, but I certainly hope it is.

[PLAYER57832]

People no longer have as much money to spend and when they do, are no longer entirely buying into the ad hype of "gotta have xyz".. saving a bit more, etc

Good. I don't know if this is true or not, but I certainly hope it is.

Also, most people already have a lot of what they need.

But.. it is part of why our economy is tanking. Becuase our system, as it is set up, depends on growth. "Sucess" today is measured in terms of growth, not sustainability.

[Woodruff]

Actually, the ability to file class action suits is rapidly disappearing.

Really? How do you figure? Was there a law change I didn't hear about?

Seriously, I'm asking.

Court rulings, actually. I can't recall the specifics off-hand, but yes...there is no doubt in my mind that the ability to file class action suits will not be around much longer. Let me do some digging today when I get home from work and I'll point it out to you.

thegreekdog, this is the specific case I had in mind when I made that post. Unfortunately, it's not an isolated one:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/scalia-sets-standard-massive-mortgage-fraud-class-action-law-suit

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/supr-j21.shtml

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2011/06/20/us-news-supreme-court-tossed-out-wal-mart-class-action-suit/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/us-walmart-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3P120110621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

[Gillipig]

I don't understand how anyone can call a two party system a democracy! The Tea baggers erm Tea party is being attacked because they're a new party! There's no surprise really that both Democrats and Republicans do everything they can to keep them down and make them look like racist rednecks! It's just a shame that media is following pursuit! They could've chosen a better name though !