Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Corporate Welfare

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Corporate Welfare

 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:39:22 -0700, §nühw¤£f wrote:

SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.

> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think Wall
> Street bailout.
> Here's how corporatist Republicans fight for corporate welfare:
>
>
> General Public: We should find a way to benefit from this special new
> scientific development.
>
> Corporatist Republicans: Because of the inherent cost of
> development/economy of scale/physical constraints/huge upfront cost/
> etc., the only way to build new infrastructure to support this special
> new scientific development is with massive tax breaks and a guarantee
> that the government will give the private developer a defacto monopoly.
> This development is so critical the government must aid the market.
>
> Progressives: We strongly oppose private monopolies and giving
> corporations the public's money. If you are saying this is something the
> market is incapable of doing on its own but is critical infrastructure,
> why not treat it like public roads and make it a publicly-run utility?
>
> Corporatist Republicans: BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD!!! We will never allow
> the enlargement of government. Development and implementation must be
> done by the ever-superior private sector.
>
> Progressives: But you said the private sector was incapable of doing
> this and that we needed to provide the market with huge subsidies and
> the promise of a monopoly to support development.
>
> Corporatist Republicans: Are you communists? Is this some scheme to help
> your public sector union buddies get jobs? This must be some kind of
> union corruption otherwise why would you dare question the wisdom of
> handing a large corporation $10 billions of the government money. The
> only way we will allow this improvement to be developed is through the
> private sector.
>
> Progressives: We are willing to accept a public-private partnership to
> get this much needed development but we demand tough regulations on
> these companies so they don't exploit the effective monopoly the
> government is giving them.
>
> Corporatist Republicans: This is an acceptable compromise to stop your
> creeping socialism.
>
> Five years later...
>
> Corporatist Republicans: We demand deregulation of this industry. It
> will self-regulate thanks to the invisible hand of the market.
>
> Progressives: Wait; this is a monopoly you demanded the government help
> create and continue to protect. Without regulation this monopoly will
> rip off the public. There won't even be a market mechanism to inhibit
> bad behavior. How can you say this tiny number of protected private
> companies should be able to make endless profit from a massive
> investment by the government?
>
> Corporatist Republicans: Free Market is good! Regulation is bad! SMALL
> GOVERNMENT FOREVER!!!
>
> Progressives: What free market? What small government? You demanded we
> use the government's power and money to create this monopoly. There is
> no market at work here, because there's no real competition. This isn't
> the invisible hand of the market; this is your hand giving government
> money to your friends.
>
> Corporatist Republicans: Shhhh;if you are mean to the CEO they will
> leave us without their superior benevolence guidance. They are Galtian
> heroes; without their leadership our country would become a dystopian
> hell.
>
> Progressives: This is absurd. No one is going to leave their $15 million
> dollar job because we are mean to them. Even if CEOs leave any of these
> companies, their vice-presidents would happily step up to take the job.
> Since you demanded these companies become a unregulated
> government-protected monopoly even a drunk monkey could make them turn a
> profit.
>
> Corporatist Republicans: You hate the job creators. You must hate these
> rugged individuals who build these companies with their own hands. You
> want to take way their freedom. This means you hate America.
>
> <http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/201...f-the-public-a
> s-a-corporatist-republican-play-one/>






--
Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>
>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think Wall
>> Street bailout.


I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
material re-posted like that.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:13:01 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:

> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>
>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>> Wall Street bailout.

>
> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted material
> re-posted like that.


Didn't appreciate the humour in the article, eh?



--
Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
FromTheRafters
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
G. Morgan wrote:
> Aardvark<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>> cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>
>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think Wall
>>> Street bailout.

>
> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
> material re-posted like that.
>

Yeah Aardvark, the proper way is to ask first, then do it anyway.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:47:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

> G. Morgan wrote:
>> Aardvark<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>> cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>
>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>> Wall Street bailout.

>>
>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
>> material re-posted like that.
>>

> Yeah Aardvark, the proper way is to ask first, then do it anyway.


I only replied to the OP and cross-posted.



--
Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:13:01 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>>cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>
>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>> Wall Street bailout.

>>
>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted material
>> re-posted like that.

>
>Didn't appreciate the humour in the article, eh?


Not nearly as much as him apparently.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:29:51 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:

> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:13:01 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:
>>
>>> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>>>cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>>
>>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>>> Wall Street bailout.
>>>
>>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
>>> material re-posted like that.

>>
>>Didn't appreciate the humour in the article, eh?

>
> Not nearly as much as him apparently.


Him? Who him?



--
Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
FromTheRafters
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:47:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>> Aardvark<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>>> cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>>
>>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>>> Wall Street bailout.
>>>
>>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
>>> material re-posted like that.
>>>

>> Yeah Aardvark, the proper way is to ask first, then do it anyway.

>
> I only replied to the OP and cross-posted.
>

Yeah, it's not as if it was taken from a private server or anything like
that.

 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:29:51 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:13:01 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to be
>>>>>cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>>>> Wall Street bailout.
>>>>
>>>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
>>>> material re-posted like that.
>>>
>>>Didn't appreciate the humour in the article, eh?

>>
>> Not nearly as much as him apparently.

>
>Him? Who him?


Slow-wolf

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:41:13 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:47:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>>> Aardvark<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> SORRY ABOUT TOP-POSTING. If ever there was a post that deserved to
>>>>> be cross-posted to apse, this is it. Enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice explanation of the wingnuttian "thought" process. Hint: think
>>>>>> Wall Street bailout.
>>>>
>>>> I already emailed the editor to see if he wants his copyrighted
>>>> material re-posted like that.
>>>>
>>> Yeah Aardvark, the proper way is to ask first, then do it anyway.

>>
>> I only replied to the OP and cross-posted.
>>

> Yeah, it's not as if it was taken from a private server or anything like
> that.


LOL. Wolfus explained that he's in email contact with contributors to the
site in question. I know him well enough to know he wouldn't want to ****
them off- I would expect that they might even encourage him to spread
their word.

I dare say he'll comment on this, if he thinks it'sworth it.



--
Couldn't think of a sig. This'll have to do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Welfare babies, greasy diners and other tidbits Chris F.A. Johnson HTML 3 01-25-2009 05:50 AM
Article: Mozilla Corp. Forms Corporate Subsidiary shegeek72 Firefox 0 08-03-2005 05:45 AM
wireless lan for three computers within a large corporate network =?Utf-8?B?bWFza2Fs?= Wireless Networking 7 02-04-2005 09:17 PM
Weltweite Heilmeditation - Worldwide Welfare meditation Novize Computer Support 0 10-04-2004 12:45 AM
cisco 803 dial two different corporate networks? Dennis Ortsen Cisco 0 06-10-2004 03:04 PM



Advertisments