OWS movement: We've seen this before!

[apple0154]

Fuck you, Government can't "bail out" a goddamn thing, governments don't produce anything or earn income. The American taxpayer is the one who is doing all this "bailing out" through politicians who apparently think they were elected to spend all of our money. The best way to "bail out mainstreet" would be for the government to de-regulate, stand down, get out of the fucking way, and allow capitalist free enterprise to work.

Point of order, Wall Street is a place in New York where stocks are traded, meaning they are bought and sold, meaning that people make and lose money in the process. There are rules and regulations on what is fair and what is legal, and if anyone breaks the rules or laws, they should be prosecuted and sent to prison, but if people actively participate in capitalism on Wall Street, legally and within the rules and regulations, why are they not entitled to keep the profits they realize? They took the risk.... and make no mistake, there should be a risk... they shouldn't be 'bailed out' if they take the risk and lose. But it seems to me, Leftists want to paint this evil sinister picture with a monster named "Wall Street" lumbering on its own volition, along with "Evil Corporations" ...trampling our freedoms and gobbling up wealth... starving school kids and pushing elderly people off the cliff.... no regard for humanity at all... just out of control evil monsters we must stop! You fuckwits are too stupid for your own good. "Wall Street" and "Evil Corporations" are YOU and ME! PEOPLE! Participating in the greatest system ever devised by free men, CAPITALISM!

YOU WANT TO DESTROY THAT! RETARD!

It says you posted that at 1am. Dix, you really should be sleeping. Getting upset like this in the middle of the night is not good for your health.

 

[wanderingbear]

Dixie.. Like all you redneck southern racists,your full of shit.

 

[Lowaicue]

Say what you will, no one is going to fiddle while Rome burns and watch the US economy be destroyed. If radical anarchists like you had their way, the US would be a third world country. Let's return to a better time, to the 50's, where anarchists like you, who want to destroy America, would rightly be summarily executed by true patriots who don't despise their country.

You wish to enslave the American people, and tell them it is freedom! Slavery isn't freedom! Go do the world a favor and kill yourself!

An American gentleman domiciled in Singapore, one Robert Friedland, has a personal fortune of US$2,800,000,000.00.
Not bad, you may say. But does anyone really NEED $2.8bn? You can buy a lot of stuff with that and leave most of it to your family so they will never want or to a cats home if you prefer. Does anyone NEED more than 2.8n? The answer must be a resounding 'No'. No one with even a paltry US$1.bn would ever need food stamps. So ... put a cap on personal income. Let's say US$1bn is enough for any private individual. Wait, I hear howls of protest. It's not enough they squeal. OK lets say $2.8bn really IS enough.
Now, if you were to take back every american personal fortune of over 2.8bn, how much would that be?

Well, quite a lot. In fact it would amount to about:

US$668,300,000,000.00

How many road repairs? How many schools? How many babies would live and not die in infancy? What about medical research into cancer, AIDS and a hundred other terrors. How many teachers trained? How many nurses? How much could you help the needy?
Just think how the christians could truly demonstrate their christianity!!!

 

[Crashk]

The distinction between conservative ideology and 'we the people' is crystal clear in this thread. The right (the 1% and their brainwashed 'faux news' diddo heads) no longer believe in society and the American Dream, while everybody else is fighting for survival in a society which is crumbling due to the radical right's class warfare, failed 'trickle down', 'deficits dont matter' (when we're in power), monopolistic capitalism, insane trade deals which pits American workers against communist slave labor, deregulation and on and on....

What the propagandists on Faux tell you is communism is actually democracy at work. Don't you ever get tired of being a toadie to a failed political agenda?

Yes, we've seen this before. During Viet Nam people protested against it and their protests finally caused the defunding of the war. People in the streets caused change, something your multinational and communist backers are very afraid of.

 

[Based Chad]

To those of you who are sympathetic to the OWS movement, allow me to introduce you to a couple of cats from history you should know about. Their "message" was identical to those protesting in the OWS movement. The idea that capitalism has led to an elite class which controls all the wealth, while the majority of us do without. The concept that everyone deserves to share in economic equality and it should be distributed evenly. The idea comes from Mao Zedong, Chairman Mao... so we begin with him:

Maoists as an anti-Revisionist form of Marxist communist theory, derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976). Developed during the 1950s and 1960s, it was widely applied as the political and military guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It fell into disfavour in China in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping introduced sweeping reforms.
Definitions of Maoism vary. Within the Chinese context, Maoism can refer to Mao's belief in the mobilization of the masses, particularly in large-scale political movements [like OWS]; it can also refer to the egalitarianism [see next paragraph] that was seen during Mao's era as opposed to the free-market [capitalist] ideology of Deng Xiaoping; some scholars additionally define personality cults and political sloganeering as "Maoist" practices. Contemporary Maoists in China criticize the social inequalities created by a capitalist and 'revisionist' Communist party.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal") is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among moral agents, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality. That is, all people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, species, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage. [any of this sounding familiar?]

Egalitarian doctrines tend to maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. In large part, such a reaction is a response to the abuses of statist development and has two distinct definitions in modern English. It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power. An egalitarian believes that equality reflects the natural state of humanity. [again... sound familiar?]

In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong's thought is defined in the CPC's Constitution as "Marxism-Leninism applied in a Chinese context", synthesized by Mao Zedong and China's "first-generation leaders". It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie, and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. [in other words, IT FAILED!] Maoism provided the CPC's first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction, and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed "socialist construction". While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated "imperialism and feudalism" and created a "New China" by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party's Constitution; Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Shortly after Mao's death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping started the capitalist reforms [wow, shocker!] of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1978 beginning the radical change of Mao's ideology in the PRC. Although Mao Zedong Thought nominally remains the state ideology, Deng's admonition to seek truth from facts means that state policies are judged on their practical consequences; the role of ideology in determining policy, in many areas, has thus been considerably reduced. [Wha? it was supposed to be such a good idea!] Deng also separated Mao from Maoism, making it clear that Mao was fallible and hence that the truth of Maoism comes from observing social consequences rather than by using Mao's quotations as holy writ, as was done in Mao's lifetime. [Okay, so let's pretend we believe in it, although it doesn't work!]

In addition, the party constitution has been rewritten to give the capitalist ideas of Deng Xiaoping prominence over those of Mao. [WTF?] One consequence of this is that groups outside China which describe themselves as Maoist generally regard China as having repudiated Maoism and restored capitalism, and there is a wide perception both in and out of China that China has abandoned Maoism. [and look what that did for them!] However, while it is now permissible to question particular actions of Mao and to talk about excesses taken in the name of Maoism, there is a prohibition in China on either publicly questioning the validity of Maoism or questioning whether the current actions of the CPC are "Maoist."

Although Mao Zedong Thought is still listed as one of the four cardinal principles of the People's Republic of China, its historical role has been re-assessed. The Communist Party now says that Maoism was necessary to break China free from its feudal past, but that the actions of Mao are seen to have led to excesses during the Cultural Revolution.

The official view is that China has now reached an economic and political stage, known as the primary stage of socialism, in which China faces new and different problems completely unforeseen by Mao, and as such the solutions that Mao advocated are no longer relevant to China's current conditions.



Moving on to another charming figure in history.... This cat is a disciple of Mao, he decided that Maoism had not been given a fair chance, and with a few authoritarian tweaks, he could make it work... he was determined! He killed millions trying!

Pol Pot, (Khmer: ប៉ុល ពត), was a Cambodian Maoist revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge from 1963 until his death in 1998. From 1976 to 1979, he served as the Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea.
Pol Pot became leader of Cambodia on April 17th, 1975. During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero".

The term Year Zero, applied to the takeover of Cambodia in 1975 by Pol Pot, is an analogy to the Year One of the French Revolutionary Calendar. During the French Revolution, after the abolition of the French monarchy (September 20, 1792), the National Convention instituted a new calendar and declared the beginning of the Year I. The Pol Pot takeover of Phnom Penh was rapidly followed by a series of drastic revolutionary agrarian socialism policies vastly exceeding those of the French Reign of Terror and culminating in the Cambodian Genocide.
The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up.
In Cambodia, teachers, artists, and intellectuals were especially singled out and executed during the purges accompanying Pol Pot's Year Zero.

The Khmer Rouge period (1975–1979) refers to the rule of Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, Khieu Samphan and the Khmer Rouge Communist party over Cambodia, which the Khmer Rouge renamed as Democratic Kampuchea. The four-year period saw the deaths of approximately two million Cambodians through the combined result of political executions, starvation, and forced labour. Due to the large numbers, the deaths during the rule of the Khmer Rouge are often considered a genocide, and commonly known as the Cambodian Holocaust or Cambodian Genocide. The Khmer Rouge period ended with the invasion of Cambodia by neighbour and former ally Vietnam in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, which left Cambodia under Vietnamese occupation for a decade.

Their Constitution: The "rights and duties of the individual" were briefly defined in Article 12. They included none of what are commonly regarded as guarantees of political human rights except the statement that "men and women are equal in every respect." The document declared, however, that "all workers" and "all peasants" were "masters" of their factories and fields. [sound familiar?] An assertion that "there is absolutely no unemployment in Democratic Kampuchea" rings true in light of the regime's massive use of force.
The Constitution defined Democratic Kampuchea's foreign policy principles in Article 21, the document's longest, in terms of "independence, peace, neutrality, and nonalignment." It pledged the country's support to anti-imperialist struggles in the Third World. In light of the regime's aggressive attacks against Vietnamese, Thai, and Lao territory during 1977 and 1978, the promise to "maintain close and friendly relations with all countries sharing a common border" bore little resemblance to reality.

On the surface, society in Democratic Kampuchea was strictly egalitarian. The Khmer language, like many in Southeast Asia, has a complex system of usages to define speakers' rank and social status. These usages were abandoned. People were encouraged to call each other "friend, or "comrade" (in Khmer, មិត្ដ mitt), and to avoid traditional signs of deference such as bowing or folding the hands in salutation... However, some people were "more equal" than others. Members and candidate members of the CPK, local-level leaders of poor peasant background who collaborated with the Angkar, and members of the armed forces had a higher standard of living than the rest of the population. Refugees agree that, even during times of severe food shortage, members of the grass-roots elite had adequate, if not luxurious, supplies of food. One refugee wrote that "pretty new bamboo houses" were built for Khmer Rouge cadres along the river in Phnom Penh.
According to Craig Etcheson, an authority on Democratic Kampuchea, members of the revolutionary army lived in self-contained colonies, and they had a "distinctive warrior-caste ethos." Armed forces units personally loyal to Pol Pot, known as the "Unconditional Divisions," were a privileged group within the military.

How did it work Economically?

In its general contours, Democratic Kampuchea's economic policy was similar to, and possibly inspired by, China's radical Great Leap Forward that carried out immediate collectivisation of the Chinese countryside in 1958. During the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge established "mutual assistance groups" in the areas they occupied.
After 1973, these were organised into "low-level cooperatives" in which land and agricultural implements were lent by peasants to the community but remained their private property. "High-level cooperatives," in which private property was abolished and the harvest became the collective property of the peasants, appeared in 1974. "Communities," introduced in early 1976, were a more advanced form of high-level cooperative in which communal dining was instituted. State-owned farms also were established.
Far more than the Chinese communists, the Khmer Rouge relentlessly pursued the ideal of economic self-sufficiency, in their case the version that Khieu Samphan had outlined in his 1959 doctoral dissertation. Extreme measures were taken. Currency was abolished, and domestic trade or commerce could be conducted only through barter. Rice, measured in tins, became the most important medium of exchange, although people also bartered gold, jewelry, and other personal possessions. [In other words: EPIC FAIL, AGAIN!]

Since 1990 Cambodia has gradually recovered, demographically and economically, from the Khmer Rouge regime, although the psychological scars affect many Cambodian families and émigré communities. The current government teaches little about Khmer Rouge atrocities in schools. Cambodia has a very young population and by 2005 three-quarters of Cambodians were too young to remember the Khmer Rouge years. The younger generations would only know the Khmer Rouge through word-of-mouth from parents and elders.


So how many MILLIONS of Americans do Comminists expect they'll need to kill this time around?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

How many will the bankers kill? A lot. They're not capitalists, they're fascists you stroke. They're all for handouts when their precious institution are in trouble. The "egalitarian response" is also a response to very real abuses by the capitalists whom you blow daily.

 

[Phantasmal]

How many will the bankers kill? A lot. They're not capitalists, they're fascists you stroke. They're all for handouts when their precious institution are in trouble. The "egalitarian response" is also a response to very real abuses by the capitalists whom you blow daily.

Long time no see, I thought maybe you were Occupying someplace.

 

[Based Chad]

Long time no see, I thought maybe you were Occupying someplace.

I can't afford to be photographed in public. Seriously. I cant pay someone enough. LOL.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not about economic equality. It's about survival. Try to grasp that important point.

As I said before if the average person earning $50,000/yr can afford a home and dinner every night and a car does that mean the person earning $500,000 deserves 10 homes and 10 dinners and 10 cars? Or the person earning $5,000,000/yr. Do they deserve 100 homes and 100 dinners and 100 cars while others go hungry or end up losing their home and their family splits apart?

It has nothing to do with "equality". It's about being fair.

The current "system" allows vacant homes to deteriorate while people live on the street.

Nevada's boom and bust leaves 167,000 empty houses
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2011-03-26-nevada-real-estate.htm

Also, vacant homes succumb to vandalism and animal/insect damage. New homes are still being constructed because people don't want to buy a home that has been empty for a long period even if it's much cheaper. Those homes are going to eventually rot. No one benefits.

What does it take for people to see there is something wrong with the "system"? 167,000 vacant homes. The government could buy a block of homes and use it as a retirement community for the needy elderly.

(Excerpt) Thousands of roofers, carpet layers, drywall installers, road pavers and other workers poured into the state in the early 2000s as stretches of desert were transformed into subdivisions, apartment complexes and malls. Many are empty now.

Driving through Henderson, the state’s second-largest city, Realtor Terry Nacion, who migrated from Hawaii in 2003, said she remembered when there was waiting list of 1,500 for 300 condo units that were priced at $99,000 and that went for as much as $225,000. “Now they are worth $50,000 to $60,000,” she said. (End)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ms-with-unemployment-stranded-homeowners.html

The government could use TARP funds to buy blocks of condos. The elderly could either rent or purchase them for approximately $300/mth. Available for people 60+ years only with the stipulation the community would be reclassified after 20 years as a "regular" community. The government would receive interest on the money for 20 years and get a bonus when they sold the rental units.

That's the government helping people.

What do you think about that idea?

Found the problem that's causing you so many problems.
It's the word deserve.
A person "deserves" what ever they can acquire.
If they're not capable of acquiring it, then they don't deserve it.

 

[apple0154]

Found the problem that's causing you so many problems.
It's the word deserve.
A person "deserves" what ever they can acquire.
If they're not capable of acquiring it, then they don't deserve it.

So, does that include people who successfully steal? Does that include people who deliberately mislead others? Or, my favorite, does that include people who own LLC companies, rip off folks, declare bankruptcy, then keep all the ill-gotten gains to pay mortgages and vacations?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, does that include people who successfully steal? Does that include people who deliberately mislead others? Or, my favorite, does that include people who own LLC companies, rip off folks, declare bankruptcy, then keep all the ill-gotten gains to pay mortgages and vacations?

What the fuck are you talking about? Can you be specific? As far as I know, people do go to jail when they steal and get caught, and people who break the law get prosecuted for it. There is nothing illegal about forming an LLC or corporation, buying and selling stocks, and profiting legally in the capitalist free enterprise system. There is nothing ill-gotten about their gains, they took a risk and it paid off. As for bailouts, etc. I didn't agree with them, nor did most conservatives, it was mainly DEMOCRATS who claimed we had to "bail out" the capitalists to prevent economic catastrophe and the end of the world, according to Joe Biden. But now, you're dishonest little fucktard ass, wants to blame that on Republicans, because people like John Shit-for-brains McCain signed off on it, along with Bush.

 

[apple0154]

What the fuck are you talking about? Can you be specific? As far as I know, people do go to jail when they steal and get caught, and people who break the law get prosecuted for it. There is nothing illegal about forming an LLC or corporation, buying and selling stocks, and profiting legally in the capitalist free enterprise system. There is nothing ill-gotten about their gains, they took a risk and it paid off. As for bailouts, etc. I didn't agree with them, nor did most conservatives, it was mainly DEMOCRATS who claimed we had to "bail out" the capitalists to prevent economic catastrophe and the end of the world, according to Joe Biden. But now, you're dishonest little fucktard ass, wants to blame that on Republicans, because people like John Shit-for-brains McCain signed off on it, along with Bush.

Looks like I have to spell this out for you. Freedom stated, "A person "deserves" what ever they can acquire." and I asked if that includes LLC companies.

As you correctly noted there is nothing illegal about forming a LLC company. I know that. Let me give you an example which I dealt with personally.

Years ago, I attended a "Home Fair" as I required 15 windows for a building I owned. "Joe's Windows" sold brand name windows and offered installation. The windows were guaranteed for 10 years! That sounded good to me so I had the windows installed keeping 10% back for a month to ensure the job was done properly.

A couple of weeks later one of the windows didn't operate properly so I phoned "Joe". Joe told me to phone the window manufacturer. A man came by from the manufacturer's office and said the installation was the problem and the window itself was fine. He told me to contact "Joe". So, I called Joe again.

Joe sent a guy who screwed the top part closed which prevented the window from being able to flip around in order to clean it. (It was a 3rd floor window so it was vital it could be cleaned from the inside.) That was the "solution" and they refused to do more. I decided to keep the 10% I was holding and the case was closed.

Now, if I decided to sue Joe his company consisted of a rusted, old pick-up truck and a hammer and screwdriver. All he did was purchase windows after a customer had given a deposit to cover the cost and immediately after the job was finished the customer would pay the rest. Joe would install windows all spring and summer and if enough people sued he simply declared bankruptcy. That meant he could lose his old, rusty truck (value probably $2,000 and his hammer and screwdriver. Meanwhile, he kept all the money his customers had paid him. Money he used to pay his home mortgage, take vacations, etc.

That is legal. It is legal to rip off people and keep the money and I was asking Freedom if he agrees with that. If he thinks that's fair. Do you think it's fair? It that good ol' capitalism at work?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Trouble is, what you describe is neither legal or realistic in modern times. That may have been the case in 1911, not in 2011. These days, anyone who works on anything associated with your home, must be licensed and bonded. That means, whoever bonds them, protects the consumer against the sort of thing you just laid out. If they have complaints filed with the bonding company, they lose their licenses and can no longer do business. In addition, should there happen to be some wild-ass scenario where a business has slighted the consumer in any way, there is small claims court, and they are considerably more favorable to the consumer than the business, therefore, most businesses will settle to avoid the judge.

So basically, you are telling us a yarn about something that never did happen to you, it's something you thought you could get away with making up, in order to make some kind of fucked up point about why we need to destroy capitalist enterprises and replace them with state-run communist party distribution. Why don't you just stop lying to people who are smarter than you?

 

[apple0154]

Trouble is, what you describe is neither legal or realistic in modern times. That may have been the case in 1911, not in 2011. These days, anyone who works on anything associated with your home, must be licensed and bonded. That means, whoever bonds them, protects the consumer against the sort of thing you just laid out. If they have complaints filed with the bonding company, they lose their licenses and can no longer do business. In addition, should there happen to be some wild-ass scenario where a business has slighted the consumer in any way, there is small claims court, and they are considerably more favorable to the consumer than the business, therefore, most businesses will settle to avoid the judge.

So basically, you are telling us a yarn about something that never did happen to you, it's something you thought you could get away with making up, in order to make some kind of fucked up point about why we need to destroy capitalist enterprises and replace them with state-run communist party distribution. Why don't you just stop lying to people who are smarter than you?

What I related is the truth and it did happen to me.

Here, companies are registered with the government. A quick check showed a number of companies changed names on a yearly basis. First it was owned by a "Mr. B. Smith". Then a "Mr. D. Smith". Then a "Mr. M Smith". The point being the company is merely passed through the family.

So, tell me, what do you think the LLC stands for? It's limited liability. Why limited liability? Why isn't a business responsible for ALL the liability?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So, does that include people who successfully steal? Does that include people who deliberately mislead others? Or, my favorite, does that include people who own LLC companies, rip off folks, declare bankruptcy, then keep all the ill-gotten gains to pay mortgages and vacations?

We have laws against theft and fraud.
If you think you have a case, file it; because an LLC does not protect against criminality.

Until then; please make an attempt to stay in the logical word, with the majority of everyone else.

No one DESERVES to have what others have, just because they FEEL they deserve it; but once again, you have returned to your usage of absolutes.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Looks like I have to spell this out for you. Freedom stated, "A person "deserves" what ever they can acquire." and I asked if that includes LLC companies.

As you correctly noted there is nothing illegal about forming a LLC company. I know that. Let me give you an example which I dealt with personally.

Years ago, I attended a "Home Fair" as I required 15 windows for a building I owned. "Joe's Windows" sold brand name windows and offered installation. The windows were guaranteed for 10 years! That sounded good to me so I had the windows installed keeping 10% back for a month to ensure the job was done properly.

A couple of weeks later one of the windows didn't operate properly so I phoned "Joe". Joe told me to phone the window manufacturer. A man came by from the manufacturer's office and said the installation was the problem and the window itself was fine. He told me to contact "Joe". So, I called Joe again.

Joe sent a guy who screwed the top part closed which prevented the window from being able to flip around in order to clean it. (It was a 3rd floor window so it was vital it could be cleaned from the inside.) That was the "solution" and they refused to do more. I decided to keep the 10% I was holding and the case was closed.

Now, if I decided to sue Joe his company consisted of a rusted, old pick-up truck and a hammer and screwdriver. All he did was purchase windows after a customer had given a deposit to cover the cost and immediately after the job was finished the customer would pay the rest. Joe would install windows all spring and summer and if enough people sued he simply declared bankruptcy. That meant he could lose his old, rusty truck (value probably $2,000 and his hammer and screwdriver. Meanwhile, he kept all the money his customers had paid him. Money he used to pay his home mortgage, take vacations, etc.

That is legal. It is legal to rip off people and keep the money and I was asking Freedom if he agrees with that. If he thinks that's fair. Do you think it's fair? It that good ol' capitalism at work?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You, being a cheap ass bastard, took a risk and then wanted your risk insured.
Did you check with the Better Business Bureau first, or were you just interested in the dollar amount.

Thanks for proving that you're an idiot.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What I related is the truth and it did happen to me.

Here, companies are registered with the government. A quick check showed a number of companies changed names on a yearly basis. First it was owned by a "Mr. B. Smith". Then a "Mr. D. Smith". Then a "Mr. M Smith". The point being the company is merely passed through the family.

So, tell me, what do you think the LLC stands for? It's limited liability. Why limited liability? Why isn't a business responsible for ALL the liability?

It appears that you did this "quick check" after the fact and now FEEL that you're to be protected from your own stupidity.
Did you file a claim with the BBB; because even in Kanada, an LLC must post a bond to protect against such claims of "fraud"?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What I related is the truth and it did happen to me.

Here, companies are registered with the government. A quick check showed a number of companies changed names on a yearly basis. First it was owned by a "Mr. B. Smith". Then a "Mr. D. Smith". Then a "Mr. M Smith". The point being the company is merely passed through the family.

So, tell me, what do you think the LLC stands for? It's limited liability. Why limited liability? Why isn't a business responsible for ALL the liability?

Again, no legitimate "Home Fair" would have anyone represented who wasn't licensed and bonded. If you made the idiotic decision to do business with someone who wasn't licensed or bonded, it is your own fault... buyer beware. Still, even if you did happen to do business with a less than scrupulous business, there is small claims court, the Small Business Administration, and the Chamber of Commerce. I would have started by protesting to the people who did the "Home Fair" and demanded they take responsibility for letting an unlicensed and un-bonded vendor in to begin with. I honestly don't think that was the case, because I think you are lying through you shit-stained teeth about all of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Company

A limited liability company (LLC) is a flexible form of enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate structures. It is a legal form of company that provides limited liability to its owners in the vast majority of United States jurisdictions. LLCs do not need to be organized for profit.

Often incorrectly called a "limited liability corporation" (instead of company), it is a hybrid business entity having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership or sole proprietorship (depending on how many owners there are). An LLC, although a business entity, is a type of unincorporated association and is not a corporation. The primary characteristic an LLC shares with a corporation is limited liability, and the primary characteristic it shares with a partnership is the availability of pass-through income taxation. It is often more flexible than a corporation, and it is well-suited for companies with a single owner.

It is important to understand that limited liability does not imply that owners are always fully protected from personal liabilities. Courts can and sometimes will pierce the corporate veil of corporations (or LLCs) when some type of fraud or misrepresentation is involved.

Hope that answers some of your idiotic questions, and the reason companies are held responsible for ALL liability is, we wouldn't have businesses otherwise. That is the whole entire purpose of corporations and LLCs. So that you and your partners can invest a portion of your wealth in a business and not risk everything you own. If you remove that, no one with wealth would ever be willing to take the risk of losing everything they have, it's just not worth that gamble.

 

[Bfgrn]

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

It does make you wonder how idiotic Liberals can advocate this man's system of government, doesn't it? The left-wing nitwits who are promoting Maoist thinking, are what the Communists refer to a "useful idiots." They will create the conditions for the revolution, and usher in Communism, before being relegated to obscurity and summarily executed. As Mao said, there is no room for liberalism. Also, let's remember what an authoritarian Communist Chinese tyrant thinks of as "LIBERAL" is not typical left-wing American liberalism, it's more like everything associated with freedom, democracy, western civilization and culture, and capitalism... those are "liberal" concepts to someone like Mao.

I have often said, I wish society had the ability to fast forward and rewind, so that we could implement some of liberalisms finest ideas, and fast forward 50-100 years and see how it works out in reality... then we could rewind and resoundingly reject the insanity. This whole Maoist philosophy of late, is a prime example. Maybe if you could see first hand, people dying in the streets of starvation, millions carted off to concentration camps, or lined up and executed... maybe if you could see our beloved country looking like something of the third world, and your family members chained and shackled as slaves of the state, it would convince you the road you're heading down is insane?

 

[Bfgrn]

It does make you wonder how idiotic Liberals can advocate this man's system of government, doesn't it? The left-wing nitwits who are promoting Maoist thinking, are what the Communists refer to a "useful idiots." They will create the conditions for the revolution, and usher in Communism, before being relegated to obscurity and summarily executed. As Mao said, there is no room for liberalism. Also, let's remember what an authoritarian Communist Chinese tyrant thinks of as "LIBERAL" is not typical left-wing American liberalism, it's more like everything associated with freedom, democracy, western civilization and culture, and capitalism... those are "liberal" concepts to someone like Mao.

I have often said, I wish society had the ability to fast forward and rewind, so that we could implement some of liberalisms finest ideas, and fast forward 50-100 years and see how it works out in reality... then we could rewind and resoundingly reject the insanity. This whole Maoist philosophy of late, is a prime example. Maybe if you could see first hand, people dying in the streets of starvation, millions carted off to concentration camps, or lined up and executed... maybe if you could see our beloved country looking like something of the third world, and your family members chained and shackled as slaves of the state, it would convince you the road you're heading down is insane?

Here's your problem Dixie. Communism is a conservative form of government, not a liberal form of government.

The rest of the world doesn't conform to your parochial indoctrination.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone