Can someone tell me the amount of debt Regan and the Bush's accumulated?

[nynco]

So in your libertarian deregulation model... what laws are there to stop wealth and corportations in particular from BUYING our elected officials if your same model says that money is free speech and corporations have the same rights as living citizens and you can give as much money as you want to an elected official? Nothing.... and that thing always leads to the corruption that you are crying about.

You want to read up on a good essay that debunks most of the libertarian garbage have at it.
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

[spqrzilla]

So in your libertarian deregulation model... what laws are there to stop wealth and corportations in particular from BUYING our elected officials if your same model says that money is free speech and corporations have the same rights as living citizens and you can give as much money as you want to an elected official? Nothing.... and that thing always leads to the corruption that you are crying about.

You want to read up on a good essay that debunks most of the libertarian garbage have at it.
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

You don't even know what libertarian philosphy is, but you are content to use it as an epithet. In a libertarian economic model, there is little danger of "buying" an elected official because the libertarians don't give the government the power to do anything.

Your opinions seem firmly grounded upon your ignorance.

[nynco]

Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.

[Pancho Villa]

Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.

Ahh, actually, you proved my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument, even if you don't understand how.

I'm going to be smug and bask in my victory.

[spqrzilla]

Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.

Another comment where you show your ignorance.

First, I'm not a libertarian. Its not "my" model. My comments were illustrating how you are making comments about libertarian economic models that bear absolutely no relationship to actual libertarian philosophy. None. Your "refutations" of the libertarian model are to make up nonsense about what it states, and then triumphantly proclaim how wrong your fabrications are.

It would seem obvious that if government was not allowed to act outside of a small sphere, it would be meaningless to "bribe" its officials for results outside that sphere. (Meanwhile increased regulations in the real world are increasing the influence of big corporations and increasing the amount of crony capitalism).

So your belief that my comments - which you can't seem to understand at all - prove your point is just so absolutely ridiculous that I wonder how it is that you can be so confused about basics.

[nynco]

Go on explain yourself rather than doing a kid dance based on your opinion. The only thing you said was "I know you are but what am I" hardly a winning argument.

[nynco]

Even when gov was much smaller back in the 1800s corruption was a big problem. Its laughable to think that if you shrank gov small enough that corruption mean nothing. That is historically false.

Now if we had regulations that made it so that people could not buy or bribe our gov and punishments that put people in jail for a long time who did so, that might go a long way in fixing this mess. But as I said you and admitted, you do want regulations.

So about who is being ridiculous now?

[spqrzilla]

Even when gov was much smaller back in the 1800s corruption was a big problem. Its laughable to think that if you shrank gov small enough that corruption mean nothing. That is historically false.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Your ignorance of libertarian philosophy is so immense that it hurts. There can only be corruption where government acts.

Now if we had regulations that made it so that people could not buy or bribe our gov and punishments that put people in jail for a long time who did so, that might go a long way in fixing this mess. But as I said you and admitted, you do want regulations.

You think bribery is legal? You think its not already against the law? Where do you come from? Next, you are going to tell us that we have so much murder because there is no law against it.
Your bizarre view of the world is beyond parody.

So about who is being ridiculous now?

You.

[nynco]

Tort reform should have been part of the over-regulation of the health care industry that is going on.


Again you guys don't seem to get the obvious. If you take away peoples rights to sue in your "tort reform" there is no system that is functional in the tort cases that will ever stop a company from doing as they please. They will crunch the numbers of how many people they will kill, who will sue (and only ever get 250K in damages) and if that number is lower than the cost.... well guess what twinkle toes.... they'll just keep on killin because it costs them less.

The only thing that stopped Mc Donalds from serving insanely hot coffee was the economic damages. There were hundreds of cases before that where Mc Donalds was found to be at fault for that same issue. But they were never fined anything that caused them to give a shit. That is why the jury awarded so much to that old lady because her lawyer pointed that out and the JURY OF YOUR PEERS decided to send a message one of financial burden to Mc Donalds.

You think that taking away peoples rights to sue will somehow strengthen the Tort system and prevent fraud.... and at the same time end gov regulation will do good.

Are you high?

[Singlestack]

Tort reform should have been part of the over-regulation of the health care industry that is going on.
Again you guys don't seem to get the obvious. If you take away peoples rights to sue in your "tort reform" there is no system that is functional in the tort cases that will ever stop a company from doing as they please.

One thing I really can't stand about liberals is the constant use of the strawman argument. A strawman is where a position is misrepresented as something it isn't, then attacked. In this case, the poster says tort reform is "taking away peoples right to sue". Absolute BS. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is proposing Tort Reform and limiting a "right to sue".If the poster is intellectually honest, he will explain exactly how Tort reform takes away "peoples right to sue". He can't.

A more recent example of strawman arguments is the Democrat Party saying that Republicans want to take a way a woman's right to birth control. Again, couldn't be further from the truth, but it certainly fires up the base, no doubt about it. The reality is they want all taxpayers to fund free contraceptives (and abortion, for that matter) - even those who are morally and religiously opposed to that. The posit the strawman, since making the true argument as I stated above won't have the same effect. So demagogue and lie to your hearts content.

Singlestack