Papa John's and Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't like Romney either, but at least he'd be more likely to get rid of Obamacare.

I recall you had brought that point up before about the botched abortions, and other WP members had demonstrated that reporting on Obama's response was misrepresented by the right. I have to think he was probably more interested in supporting a pro-choice position, than with being okay with killing babies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You mean how people used media sources that were outright lieing in order to try to protect Obama?

Kraichgauer, I actually tracked down and read the text of the bill in question for myself, fact of the matter is those left wing sources lied, and you like others here believed the lie. I did my research Kraichgauer, I think the legislation's own text trumps (and I read the entire piece of legislation) what some place like moveon.org or mediamatters claims was in it.

Again, I have to think his vote was more in support of a pro-choice position, than to want to kill babies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Someone is showing symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome again.

The baby was outside of the mother, even most people that support abortion draw the line when the child is breathing outside of the mother...

Had Barrack Obama ever written or been recorded as saying he wants to throw live babies into the garbage? I ask, because I strongly suspect the answer is no.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Fox Noise will accuse Obama of anything.

I doubt that is correct. You see, capitalism also caused a horrendous poverty and living conditions. What you call capitalism's great success today is the result of industrialization and during the industrialization era capitalist thinking was precisely what made the wealthy few oppress and exploit the poor in ways that today would be considered crimes against humanity.

The modern result of capitalism in the already westernized world is not a reduction in poverty but a re-location of wealth and resources from other parts of the world into these nations. Look at India and most of Asia and Africa as a perfect example of how capitalism re-locates wealth to the western nations.

It is the hallmark of capitalism to take from the many to benefit the few. You define 'poverty' in your own context and at the micro-level of individuals within their socio-economic matrix. In that sense, yes the 1st world poor have it much better than the 3rd world poor because the vast amount of resources available to the 1st world people is enormous..and most of it acquired from 3rd world nations/people. Poverty is not reduced, it is re-located as well.

That is a bit too simplistic. It's true that imperialism contributed to giving the west a big head start over other parts of the world in the 19th century but it isn't a zero-sum game today as a lot of what was once considered the third world is now beginning to catch up to the west. I do believe the east-west trade imbalance is unsustainable and that may be at the root of the recent economic problems.

Between the New Deal and the end of the cold war, the US was not dependent on foreign goods and factories to build up it's economy to build up it's superpower status. We built up our own economy and reduced poverty (compared to the past). By making more wealth and lifting everyone up rather than sacking the rich, we created a standard of living where our destitute inner city areas were equal to the average communist's "fair share". I will agree that free trade only benefits a select few, but you can thank the progressives and local rebels for the state of most former European colonies. They had stable governments with relatively stable economies, but that wasn't conducive to socialism/communism. Rhodesia had a pretty decent setup going, and look what Mugabe did to the place. South Africa is now worse off than when Apartheid ended- even by the UN's standards; their economy has shrunk from the 1990 benchmark once inflation is factored in, crime is rampant, and so is unemployment. How about the Congo? Once the red rubber era was over, things were pretty stable. North Africa? Former Ottoman territories? Persia? Burma/Southeast Asia? Hong Kong? The Philippines? All those places were stable, and if they had factions of barbarians in the area, they could be kept in check. So if you are going to talk crap about venture capitalists, don't forget about the communist governments and military dictatorships progressives helped get in power, that businesses have to negotiate with first before they can do business there!

But the New Deal and WWII did "sack the rich" somewhat. There was not only high taxes but also rationing of resources for the war effort. Also, the failure of smaller socialist states has less to do with "too much wealth redistribution to the poor" in those countries than it does ineffective governments and a lack of natural resources to be self-sufficient without trading with the rest of the world.

I've come to realize that hierarchy really hasn't changed that much since Egyptians had pharaohs.

You've got a mysterious God King who cares for his slaves as much as he cares about the grains of sand in the desert; as long as there are more to blow in at his feet, all is well, and rarely visits his workers with good news.

Then you've got his royal court with magicians, sages, and other such speakers of nonsense that could be seen equal to board executives and stockholders.

I suppose I don't have to continue the metaphor, and I simply say that my point is, its rather amazing how little the system has actually evolved.

Evolution is about survival, no perfection.

ruveyn

For those of you who think that Papa John's is "evil Capitalism" at work, is this also "evil Capitalism"?

From http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/21/Surprise-PA-College-Slashes-Hours-To-Avoid-Obamacare: