Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republican Debate

Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 10:45:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, what did you think?

First off, I just have to let you know that I'm a Democrat.

I think Herman Cain won this. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I think Cain did a really good job. But I think Romney will end up getting the nomination. Huckabee would if he would run.

So, what do you think?
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 11:51:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 10:45:20 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, what did you think?

First off, I just have to let you know that I'm a Democrat.

I think Herman Cain won this. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I think Cain did a really good job. But I think Romney will end up getting the nomination. Huckabee would if he would run.

So, what do you think?

Paul won.
kfc
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 4:18:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ron Paul did well, but stuttered a little bit.

Herman Cain did well. He was clear and concise, but a little bit repetitive. And he showed himself very weak on foreign policy. Very weak!

Tim Pawlenty was a classic GOP debater, which is also the classic way to lose. People do not respond to that style any longer. He made a few mistakes but cleaned it up in the end.

Rick Santorum was the biggest ignoramus! What a dummy, going on about family values and freedom; yet he wants to end peoples freedom by pushing family values. He was the worse!

Gary Johnson did well, but came off whinny when he asked for more face time. He also was very concise, but has weird mannerisms.

No one pulled forward, but people did hurt themselves. Rick Santorum looked like a big dummy and was hit hard by the response after the debate. What an idiot! He seems uneducated on facts. He will be out quick. There is already an oxymoronic "Social Conservative" that will take that vote; and his name is Huckabee.

I am partial to Ron Paul, because he is the only one giving answers to monetary policy; and the lone foreign policy expert on the panel.

We will see.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 5:27:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I cannot remember hearing even one straight answer from Pawlenty. He got on my nerves more than even Santorum did, at least that one wasn't qite as evasive.

Did they all get the same amount of speaking time? I'd have loved to hear Ron Paul more, but then I suppose he didn't get less than the others.

Herman Cain... He knew his answers well, but they sounded very rehearsed and unoriginal.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:19:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 5:27:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
I cannot remember hearing even one straight answer from Pawlenty. He got on my nerves more than even Santorum did, at least that one wasn't qite as evasive.

Did they all get the same amount of speaking time? I'd have loved to hear Ron Paul more, but then I suppose he didn't get less than the others.

Herman Cain... He knew his answers well, but they sounded very rehearsed and unoriginal.

I agree. I think what people, especially teabaggers, like about Cain is that he hasn't been involved in politics before. The Republican Teaparty voter believes that all politicians are a bunch of commies ready to steal their guns, but they think that rich businessmen have our nation's interests at heart. They love Cain.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 10:19:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:19:02 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 5/8/2011 5:27:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
I cannot remember hearing even one straight answer from Pawlenty. He got on my nerves more than even Santorum did, at least that one wasn't qite as evasive.

Did they all get the same amount of speaking time? I'd have loved to hear Ron Paul more, but then I suppose he didn't get less than the others.

Herman Cain... He knew his answers well, but they sounded very rehearsed and unoriginal.

I agree. I think what people, especially teabaggers, like about Cain is that he hasn't been involved in politics before.

That and he is a simple answered man because of your fact. Teabaggers want simple unadulterated words that make sense to them.

The Republican Teaparty voter believes that all politicians are a bunch of commies ready to steal their guns, but they think that rich businessmen have our nation's interests at heart.

I cannot understand their (keyword) complete infatuation with businessman. Another (Keyword) Most successful businessman constantly try to turn profit at the benefit of others. I don't want my government run by constitutionally uneducated businessmen. I would rather a well rounded politician. Someone that worked with normal people, have a grounded defined political philosophy, knowledgeable about the constitution, humble, and down to earth.

(Did I secretly describe Obama!!! Huh!)

They love Cain.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 3:09:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 10:45:20 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
So, what did you think?

First off, I just have to let you know that I'm a Democrat.

I think Herman Cain won this. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I think Cain did a really good job. But I think Romney will end up getting the nomination. Huckabee would if he would run.

So, what do you think?

Yea Ron Paul definetly won, he got thunderous applause for most if not all of what he said.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 10:19:04 AM, comoncents wrote:

I cannot understand their (keyword) complete infatuation with businessman. Another (Keyword) Most successful businessman constantly try to turn profit at the benefit of others. I don't want my government run by constitutionally uneducated businessmen. I would rather a well rounded politician. Someone that worked with normal people, have a grounded defined political philosophy, knowledgeable about the constitution, humble, and down to earth.


Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.

Being knowledgeable about the law and the constitution only helps you understand how to circumvent it when you are not held accountable. Politicians are rarely held accountable. If you buy something bad to eat from a politician, you have to wait four years to get a new sandwich.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/8/2011 10:19:04 AM, comoncents wrote:

I cannot understand their (keyword) complete infatuation with businessman. Another (Keyword) Most successful businessman constantly try to turn profit at the benefit of others. I don't want my government run by constitutionally uneducated businessmen. I would rather a well rounded politician. Someone that worked with normal people, have a grounded defined political philosophy, knowledgeable about the constitution, humble, and down to earth.


Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.


I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people. I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.
I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak. Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

Being knowledgeable about the law and the constitution only helps you understand how to circumvent it when you are not held accountable. Politicians are rarely held accountable. If you buy something bad to eat from a politician, you have to wait four years to get a new sandwich.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:11:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.


I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people. I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.
I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak. Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

Give me an example of a free market monopoly.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:14:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:11:31 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.


I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people. I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.
I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak. Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

Give me an example of a free market monopoly.

Read the book.
It gives many great examples from England, Wars, Andrew Carnegie, and much about consciousness. It is a great book. Read it, then get back to me. I'll pull mine out of the library this week and site somethings... If I have the time.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:16:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As long as people can improvise and find an alternate solution to monopolies eventually, I see no problem with it. Sometimes the human ingenuity arising from a monopoly stranglehold has caused incredible advances to our standard of living. Just think of how the global market and human ingenuity really screwed OPEC over when they found other ways to get oil. If it were not for OPEC's monopoly stranglehold and jacking up the prices in an oil shortage market, the world would never have drilled in Alaska or found oil in the North Sea, or conserved, or found alternative power like nuclear and solar. All thanks to OPEC. Now the global market sets the oil price, not OPEC. All this was done extremely quickly over a few years. Politicians can take decades to make any real changes.... they just do not have quick reflexes like a free market system when the election cycles for politicians are many years apart. A CEO can get trashcanned on a quarterly basis or even less.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:20:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:14:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:11:31 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.


I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people. I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.
I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak. Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

Give me an example of a free market monopoly.

Read the book.
It gives many great examples from England, Wars, Andrew Carnegie, and much about consciousness. It is a great book. Read it, then get back to me. I'll pull mine out of the library this week and site somethings... If I have the time.

"Read the book" doesn't lend itself to a very good online discussion not to mention the pile of books I have on my reading list already. I'm just asking you to name a monopoly that has occurred because of the market (i.e. without state intervention).
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:22:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:16:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
As long as people can improvise and find an alternate solution to monopolies eventually, I see no problem with it.

I can agree with that.

Sometimes the human ingenuity arising from a monopoly stranglehold has caused incredible advances to our standard of living. Just think of how the global market

I think the global market is the key to ending Monopoly, but government gets in the way of proving that fact.

and human ingenuity really screwed OPEC over when they found other ways to get oil. If it were not for OPEC's monopoly stranglehold and jacking up the prices in an oil shortage market, the world would never have drilled in Alaska or found oil in the North Sea, or conserved, or found alternative power like nuclear and solar. All thanks to OPEC. Now the global market sets the oil price, not OPEC. All this was done extremely quickly over a few years. Politicians can take decades to make any real changes.... they just do not have quick reflexes like a free market system when the election cycles for politicians are many years apart. A CEO can get trashcanned on a quarterly basis or even less.

Dude. A completely free market could be dangerous. I have to look it up, but didn't Adam Smith explain that a completely free market needs to be regulated...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:27:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:22:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:16:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
As long as people can improvise and find an alternate solution to monopolies eventually, I see no problem with it.

I can agree with that.

Sometimes the human ingenuity arising from a monopoly stranglehold has caused incredible advances to our standard of living. Just think of how the global market

I think the global market is the key to ending Monopoly, but government gets in the way of proving that fact.

and human ingenuity really screwed OPEC over when they found other ways to get oil. If it were not for OPEC's monopoly stranglehold and jacking up the prices in an oil shortage market, the world would never have drilled in Alaska or found oil in the North Sea, or conserved, or found alternative power like nuclear and solar. All thanks to OPEC. Now the global market sets the oil price, not OPEC. All this was done extremely quickly over a few years. Politicians can take decades to make any real changes.... they just do not have quick reflexes like a free market system when the election cycles for politicians are many years apart. A CEO can get trashcanned on a quarterly basis or even less.

Dude. A completely free market could be dangerous. I have to look it up, but didn't Adam Smith explain that a completely free market needs to be regulated...

A free market is regulated by the consumers.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:29:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:20:27 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:14:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:11:31 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 10:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Businessmen that screw over people get caught and go out of business.
You can't get profits from a willing consumer if you are constantly pissing him off.

When was the last time you bought something to eat that tasted like crap? Did you buy it again? Probably not. Your logic fails.


I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people. I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.
I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak. Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

Give me an example of a free market monopoly.

Read the book.
It gives many great examples from England, Wars, Andrew Carnegie, and much about consciousness. It is a great book. Read it, then get back to me. I'll pull mine out of the library this week and site somethings... If I have the time.

"Read the book" doesn't lend itself to a very good online discussion not to mention the pile of books I have on my reading list already. I'm just asking you to name a monopoly that has occurred because of the market (i.e. without state intervention).

I agree. I do an injustice when I don' t have the time to finish my posts. I was hoping that someone else read the book more recently, but I'll have to find it and use some quotes.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:31:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:22:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:16:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
As long as people can improvise and find an alternate solution to monopolies eventually, I see no problem with it.

I can agree with that.

Sometimes the human ingenuity arising from a monopoly stranglehold has caused incredible advances to our standard of living. Just think of how the global market

I think the global market is the key to ending Monopoly, but government gets in the way of proving that fact.

and human ingenuity really screwed OPEC over when they found other ways to get oil. If it were not for OPEC's monopoly stranglehold and jacking up the prices in an oil shortage market, the world would never have drilled in Alaska or found oil in the North Sea, or conserved, or found alternative power like nuclear and solar. All thanks to OPEC. Now the global market sets the oil price, not OPEC. All this was done extremely quickly over a few years. Politicians can take decades to make any real changes.... they just do not have quick reflexes like a free market system when the election cycles for politicians are many years apart. A CEO can get trashcanned on a quarterly basis or even less.

Dude. A completely free market could be dangerous. I have to look it up, but didn't Adam Smith explain that a completely free market needs to be regulated...

Adam Smith is not the God of capitalism, nor is he the only economist with something to say about the free market. His stuff comes a century before the marginalist revolution, so there are plenty of economic issues he can't even touch.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:31:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people.

Give me one specific example.

I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.

Lol, I thought you said you were going to law school? You've seriously never heard of a pro bono case, or a class action suit?

I have studyed the market, and find places were it is weak.

Name one book you've read. And name one specific weakness.

Times in history have shown the markets vulerability. Look for all of you "complete" market guys, read The Great Transformation...
http://www.amazon.com...

No thanks, I have my own reading to do. I'm not particularly interested in the Keynesian crap your community college professors assigned you.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:33:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:22:05 PM, comoncents wrote:
Dude. A completely free market could be dangerous. I have to look it up, but didn't Adam Smith explain that a completely free market needs to be regulated...

Appeal to authority. Murray Rothbard said markets don't need regulation. I've just matched your third grade level analysis. QED.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:34:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:29:15 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:20:27 PM, djsherin wrote:

"Read the book" doesn't lend itself to a very good online discussion not to mention the pile of books I have on my reading list already. I'm just asking you to name a monopoly that has occurred because of the market (i.e. without state intervention).

I agree. I do an injustice when I don' t have the time to finish my posts. I was hoping that someone else read the book more recently, but I'll have to find it and use some quotes.

That's fine. I'm just curious what so called monopolies you have in mind (I don't say that to be sarcastic, but most [market] monopolies people think of aren't truly monopolies).
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:35:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:34:01 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:29:15 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:20:27 PM, djsherin wrote:

"Read the book" doesn't lend itself to a very good online discussion not to mention the pile of books I have on my reading list already. I'm just asking you to name a monopoly that has occurred because of the market (i.e. without state intervention).

I agree. I do an injustice when I don' t have the time to finish my posts. I was hoping that someone else read the book more recently, but I'll have to find it and use some quotes.

That's fine. I'm just curious what so called monopolies you have in mind (I don't say that to be sarcastic, but most [market] monopolies people think of aren't truly monopolies).

I agree. Most think that monopolies are created out of Government regulations. I understand the argument. I'll get you some examples as soon as I get the book out.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:38:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people.

Give me one specific example.

Microsoft and Standard Oil have contributed immensely to human suffering. It's true. I read it somewhere and confirmed it by asking a guy I know about it. That's 2 examples. What now? How's your free market going to get you out of this one? lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:38:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, monopolies in and of itself are not necessarily a bad thing. Industries that require a massive amount of coordinated infrastructure in order to produce efficiently and get a quality product to you (the consumer) efficiently equates to a high standard of living at a lower cost to you, the consumer. Even though the monopoly has a concentration of profits, the vast millions that benefit from a cheap standard of living more than compensates for this.

Just look at how our phone bills went through the roof when Ma Bell was busted up. Same thing could happen if Microsoft goes bust. Standard Oil regulated the supply and stabilized oil prices for the only time in US history, just look at the wild fluctuations in oil speculation now. Every monopoly can still price itself out of the market, like OPEC. Markets may be price inelastic in the short run, but never in the long run. People are just too goddamn clever not to improvise.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:41:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:35:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:34:01 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:29:15 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:20:27 PM, djsherin wrote:

"Read the book" doesn't lend itself to a very good online discussion not to mention the pile of books I have on my reading list already. I'm just asking you to name a monopoly that has occurred because of the market (i.e. without state intervention).

I agree. I do an injustice when I don' t have the time to finish my posts. I was hoping that someone else read the book more recently, but I'll have to find it and use some quotes.

That's fine. I'm just curious what so called monopolies you have in mind (I don't say that to be sarcastic, but most [market] monopolies people think of aren't truly monopolies).

I agree. Most think that monopolies are created out of Government regulations. I understand the argument. I'll get you some examples as soon as I get the book out.

Simply regurgitating what you read in a book won't lend to a thought-provoking or interesting conversation unless you truly comprehend what is written. But to show comprehension, you have to be able to recall what you have read and expound upon the points made. You have to incorporate his arguments into your own.

The fact that you cannot recall what you read, cannot write a brief synopsis of his points or give an example of the monopolies/markets you are referring to and that you told djsherin to read the entire book before coming back to you does not bode well. I think you might want to read a little more and study before attempting this conversation.

That's just my advice.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people.

Give me one specific example.

I also understand the theory of getting back at a company with Tort Law, but what about people that cannot afford a lawyer.

Lol, I thought you said you were going to law school? You've seriously never heard of a pro bono case, or a class action suit?


No. I have heard of pro bono publico, and how it really does not exist. Class action suits are only there when the lawyer knows there is money to be made. Lawyers are extremely hesitant to take any kind of class action. (Just because you've seen Erin Brockovich does not mean that it works like that.)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 11:44:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 11:38:00 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:31:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/8/2011 11:00:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
I understand the "free market" concept. He!!, I agree wit most of it; but what about times in history where monopoly has allowed a company to screw people.

Give me one specific example.

Microsoft and Standard Oil have contributed immensely to human suffering. It's true. I read it somewhere and confirmed it by asking a guy I know about it. That's 2 examples. What now? How's your free market going to get you out of this one? lulz

trollface.jpg