"The Republican War Against Women" - The Book

Unless you're a heath-nut. But if you worry about every little chemical and bacteria out there, might as well invest in some tin-foil hats.... now who was selling them? $50/3 right?

thats correct, but it was being hindered by government intervention, it could have been much faster and much sooner if they had quit preventing the market to correct itself. that's the danger of big government and capitalism, they tend to want to stick their *** in it way too often

Except for when it's flammable.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
^ first link I dug up, but yeah tap water being set on fire made the rounds in the media a while back.

its all theory, just like on paper socialism works, but in practice it failed because of reason X Y and Z. just because we've never had paradise before doesnt mean we dont know why our system *** up in a particular point in time.

if it helps you sleep at night to believe that...


we shouldn't be *** using more gas ***anyway... ffs.

as to the chemical nonsense, use a *** filter on your tap, they're cheap, *** water nuts. If it really makes you feel better electrify your water supply to distill it.

You don't get it. History can't be viewed experimentally. You can't say "History proves government intervention slows down progress" reasonably. You don't have replicates of the same event under the same conditions to observe what would happen if there were no intervention, different types of intervention etc.

And no, we don't necessarily know "why our system *** up in a particular point in time." You can talk to different historians and economists about specific events and get wildly varying interpretations of what happened and what the impacts were. The best part about history and economics is you can very easily twist just about anything to fit your own agenda.

Free water? Who gets free water?

corporate greed and corporate buying of legislation, that's allowed by giving too much control to corporations.

results of a free market.

the free water doesn't suck, well it depends on where it's from really, and it's not free everywhere. Again, filter it, all that ***can be removed by proper filtering.

the free healthcare has nothing to do with the water situation, wow...

no, its allowed by giving too much control to the government. if they didnt have all this power to auction off, the corporations wouldnt be able to cheat. you cant expect to get uncorrupt politicians.

should the government provide us all free water filters? and doesnt everything that has to do with poor health have to do with the free healthcare? if not, then why did you bring up fast food?

This conversation keeps reminding me of this:

This conversation keeps reminding me of this:

Actually, a lot of historians would disagree with the term "fall" for what happened to the Roman Empire.

Also, it's relatively apparent you still don't get it. I didn't say that you can't factually state that something happened. Yes, the Roman Empire "fell" (or declined, or transformed, or whatever).

But no one can specifically say that X,Y and Z caused it, just like you can't say in anything other than opinion that government intervention causes X and Y to happen in a specific situation, whereas lack of government intervention would have caused Z and W to happen.

I bought 2 of those books awhile back, never did get around to reading them. heh.

no, its allowed by giving too much control to the government. if they didnt have all this power to auction off, the corporations wouldnt be able to cheat. you cant expect to get uncorrupt politicians.

I already tried to tell him to come back to planet earth, he's not interested.

Just wanted to note that a matter of being, or rather, eating healthy is a heavy conflict for those of lower monetary class. Our food provisioners on mass level rely on heavily processed and chemically enhanced (thus unhealthy) foods to meet the massive demands of our country while maintaining optimal shelf life. Such processes also allow for optimal pricing, which many rely on simply so they have something in their stomachs at the end of the night.
We have livestock being fed things they weren't meant to eat to grow or develop while simultaneously injected with growth hormone steroids to give optimal amounts of food per unit, which then become ingested by consumers. We also have genetically altered seeds that build immunity to various pesticides and chemicals, all while maintaining a sweeping domination of patient and law so nobody else can use any other types of seeds. This market of heavily processed food downright monopolizes the industry in terms of price and mass production, so competition of healthier foods tend to get elevated prices which I am sure many would be unable to afford, even at a relatively middle class level.
So we have this perpetuating cycle of unhealthy food being ingested by a vast majority of Americans, while the options to eat healthy tend to be limited to those with the privilege of being able to afford it. Ironically, all this cheap food is only cheap in short term, while being ultimately more expensive when health complications arise over time, as opposed to those that can initially dish out the money to eat healthy and not remotely suffer as much from the bodily consequences of overly processed and preserved foods.

So don't misunderstand people not eating healthy as a "choice"; because often times it's the only option for their means. Therefore we have this sort of clash of maintaining principal within our healthcare system, while simultaneously perpetuating this rich vs poor scenario.

neither of you apparently ever lived on it if you think a 100% free market is the way to go.

It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.

neither of you apparently ever lived on it if you think a 100% free market is the way to go.

you absolutely can, the science of economics has scientific laws just like other types of science. even without understanding that, you can still compare the gilded age to the great depression because it's both under a capitalist system, and we do know how its supposed to work. times of war aside, the problem is when we dont do it the right way, and allow corporations and banks to buy the government. i have seen nothing to the contrary. would you agree with that or disagree?

I'd like to think there's a step between the two massive extremes you stated. Primarily one that's further on the side of less regulation than more.

It's kind of a paradox really. You can have government control and regulate everything, and thus either: *** things up, auction off said powers to the highest bidder, corrupt policies in favor of lobbyists, etc. Or you can unregulate corporations and leave them to their devices and just hope the well being of American citizens as well as their consumers is a priority to their agenda aside from status quo, bottom line, profits, etc. Protip: It isn't.