ILikePie5

I think user and cookie are both town

Wylted what's your character

But for now VTL Pie because he didn't even consider the above when he voted for oro. Sounds like trying to get an easy lynch

What do we think about Wylted's new claim?

Oro's? 

What about the night kill?

shits going down man

Give me evidence of why Oromagi was guilty.

They tried to stall this as long as possible after Mueller was forced to publicly announce "no collusion"

Fine, I will answer it.

While that is an answer and my next post represents my resentment, Ilikepie5 endures asking.

Since this was the only question Ilikepie5 asked, and this wasn't as important(especially since I shouldn't answer it because otherwise, it will put me at a disadvantage).

A normal person would normally stop asking at one point, but Ilikepie5 did not stop, and that would mean something is going on.

And to answer his inquiry, I AM NOT ANSWERING. It is up to one's choice to answer something or not, and his behavior of pushing me means something was up.

FBI needed a sacrificial example to feed the swamp narrative with the mockingbird MSM.

Flynn never saw it coming.

He got the "6 ways from Sunday" treatment.

This is my city, I have to wear a bandana to shop lol.

You mean that Texas mother?

There are a slew of stories out this week exposing totalitarian governments and activist judges abusing their power and locking up mothers and fathers.

I hope the self-proclaimed "governor" of Georgia doesn't get it, either. Yikes!

Is that all you have to add?

its temperature

What are you trying to do? I am confused.

I agree with pie. Biden will get destroyed by trump in debates and general PR. He lacks trumps charisma, and lacks the focus and genuiness of bernie/pete/warren. He was a poor choice. The only hope biden has is trump continuing with his daily briefings and medical suggestions.

How is it that you post twice and still fail to add anything substantial to the conversation worth responding to and analyzing? 

But jump to the most extreme conclusion is counter productive and foolish.

Legalizing illegals who been here for many decades does nothing to change the security or laws on the border. The two issues are not connected, although based on the next segment, you seem to be a proponent of the slippery slope fallacy.

I say that because none of those are left wing policies and the only places i hear such claims are right wing pundits and trump's twitter. I would love to see your primary source claiming such policies.

Almost noone is for open borders.

Gun control is not the same as gun ban.

I would call the belief that these are progressive policies is propaganda. Stop getting your info on the left, from pundits on the right.

the slim faction of the party who are as loudly vocal as they are immensely retarded

Your last prediction was that Warren would win the nomination because the Dem establishment would rig it in her favor.

I am rather liberal and i agree with all of those points.

I'm not going to debate banking regulations with you. I can hardly get you to understand basic sentences I use without you completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I say. 

Here is yet another example of you misunderstand or misrepresenting what I say. I keep telling you that greed is fine as long as it is channeled properly. The point isn't to get rid of greed, it is to make sure that it serves to common good. And we have been doing that for the last 100 years. If you think that is socialism then america has always been a socialist country.

I'm not using a definition other than the commonly accepted one. Why do you think i am using a special one?

most people don't know what the companies they shop at are doing.

Coca Cola had union leaders in south america murdered. 

Very few people would have any knowledge of that. Walmart crushes every union that tries to form at their stores.

Most people don't know that either. Pretending that consumers can control corporations actions is a complete joke. There are near constant examples of companies doing shitty things.

No one can keep track of all of them. And even if they could, they would quickly find that there are very few companies they can shop at.

oh of course. I forgot that high paying jobs magically grow on trees and are readily available. This argument is juvenile. If corporations all pay as little as possible, then there simply aren't very many high paying jobs.

because this topic is not a detailed debate of regulation policy. You keep shifting topics whenever it suits you.

Then you are incredibly misinformed. This is one of the major problems today. The people who are doing well see the system and think it's great because they are doing well. While the 10's or 100's of millions who are getting crushed by the current economic system get completely ignored.

The US needs stronger banking regulations for starters.

regulated capitalism is having it both ways. I don't claim to be an expert on every field. That is why we have government departments in charge to regulating those fields.

again, i have been very clear that greed can be a force for good when channeled properly. I am saying the government needs to regulate that greed to make sure it serves the public good and not just a handfull of rich oligarchs.

One interesting idea I heard was tying the amount you could pay a CEO to a proportion of the average wage of employees. EX. 100 times the average salary of your employee. Since CEOs all want to pay themselves more money, the only way they could do that would be raise the average wage of employees.

But again, I am not an expert on the field. I don't pretend to be. And I am quite certain you aren't either.

Labor standards for a starters. IE limits on the amounts of hours an employer can require a worker to work. Safety regulations, for example having sufficient fire escapes. There was a rather famous case of an employer sealing all the exits so his employees couldn't steal things and 146 employees (mostly women) burned to death. These are just a couple examples, there are many, many things that need proper regulation. 

Companies are inherent greedy, yes. I am not saying that we need to stop their greed. I never said that. I said that we need proper regulation so that in their pursuit of profit they do not act against the common good.

For example, we all agree children shouldn't be allowed to work in a dangerous factory. Children would be cheaper to hire than an adult. We are infringing on a company's ability to make money in order to protect children and serve the common good. We aren't doing it to get rid of greed. We aren't doing it to prevent them from making money. We are doing it to protect society (and in this case children).

most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others. -HB

No, i feel like I am being very clear but somehow you are still not understanding me. Greed is a powerful motivator and can be channeled to accomplish great things. However if you do not put lots of checks and balances in place to keep that greed channeled into a constructive direction, you end up with horrible consequences. People end up dead or financially ruined. That it why we need capitalism, but with strong government regulation to make sure that people profit, but that it is good for the country and the people, not just a small handful of rich oligarchs. 

im not backed into any corner. I know corporations are the backbone of the economy. I have never disputed that. I have also never said we should get rid of profit. I don't know where you are getting this stupid ideas. I am not saying them. Why do you think that the choices are unregulated, chaos or communism?

I want corporations to make jobs and make money.

the free market created the current system. It has failed. The free market is good at certain things. But primarily, it is good at making money. It is not inherently good at looking after the needs of people. Which is exactly what a healthcare system needs to do. 

This is just an incorrect statement. It's like saying that a man has a sandwich. If I also give him a drink I must be stealing the sandwich!!!.

Medicare for all, by definition, covers everything. So no one is losing any coverage. No one is losing insurance.

At worst they are maintaining the same coverage they have now.

The vast majority will be getting much better coverage. No one is losing their insurance. Not a single person.

of course you can have it both ways. We have been working on that for the last century. We want the competitive advantages of capitalism, but the control and concern for the public good. That is exactly what regulations are for. They contain the excess and the greed that is one of the main drawbacks of capitalism.

You are misunderstanding me. Greed is what drives corporations. That greed is necessary and can be a force for good. However, that greed is often at odds with the public good. That is why strong government regulations are desperately needed. That way we get the benefits of competition and capitalism, without the horrible side effects of uncontrolled avarice.

The current system lets millions go bankrupt and countless people get sicker and/or die. The current system is broken as hell. But you think the government who is too incompetent to manage healthcare?

no, i want reasonable regulations of businesses so that we can guarantee that they act in the public good while they also try to earn a profit. For example, companies used to use alot of child labor to earn a profit. As a society we decided that should not be allowed. Companies bitched and moaned about how that limited their ability to make money. But they adapted, and as a society we are all much better off for it.

If left entirely to their own devices, corporations will do horrible things in pursuit of profit. The government needs to be a check on that greed to ensure that the public good is being maintained.