Why right wingers and conservatives have more power, influence, and money?

1. The Church is not taxed
2. Media consolidation
3. The state, it works in their interest, they give it the rules it operates with.
4. Private property
5. Public property is oppressed


The wealthy and powerful people do not sponsor, donate, support, or fund leftists because leftists want private property (different from personal property) to be utilized to serve the greater good, on the other hand rightist want it to be utilized for private interest and profit.

Private property is the dominant entity of our time, so it is natural that rightists will be more powerful, influential, and wealthy than leftists.

When productive public property is massive and great than leftists rise.

 

Thanks for the unwanted information. I'm sure it won't be of use down the line.

 

Or less government interference means more production.

 

:H
Unwanted by whom?

 

lol without governmental regulations and resources the so called free market won't even exist.

Our governmental resources are not utilized to serve we, "We the people" they are utilized to help private interests flourish and profit.

 

Man, you don't have a clue.

LIBERALS generally have more money. I mean, who has more money, a Vermont liberal or a Kentucky conservative? Get your facts straight and enough with the nonsense already.

Enough with the pro-government leftist BS, let's hear some facts.

To assume the media, let alone the government, is controlled by "conservatives" is quite ridiculous. Big-government socialism controls everything, which is what you support. You support big government which ARE the corporations, so stop pretending to be against big money and corporatism when you support policy that plays right into it.

Untill you get some real facts, stop wasting people's time with these childish threads that are meaningless.

 

The free market DOESN'T exist, buddy! There is no free market. How can you have a free market when the "free market" is dominated by monopolies? That's not free market! Free market is a thing of the past.

Government is controlled by the corporations. Government IS the corporations, child!

Big government and big business have become one in the same. When you support big government, you are supporting big business as well.

Please, get your facts straight. That is, if you have any at all.

 

lol, neither do you.

The most dominate news-network is fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Is he a liberal or a conservative? It does not matter because he is just a profiteer and will use whatever tool to increase his profits. What views does his media network represents? Conservative and right wing views but why? Because liberal and leftist views do not serve his aim of profiting.

If you are not pro-government (just governments that is), what are you pro-corporatism?

hahaha, so you think the media has a liberal bias like the ignorant masses?

So the republicans and conservatives that are in power now are not what they say they are but are socialists? If so, they don't support any socialists ideals if you know what socialism is.

You are confusing corporatism with socialism.

If they are so meaningless, why did you bother replying?

 

You lack reading comprehension, where did I say it exists? have you missed the "so called" meaning it does not exist.

No one here disagrees.

Again, you assume someone disagrees with this but no one does. This situation exist not because the big business are super smart, it exists because the masses are ignorant and powerless.

By the way define big!

Either way they will win with or without big government. You called it big government, they might just form new entity and call it whatever to serve their aim. Aka corporatism.

 

Regarding the bogus liberal bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

 

Those who have the most power, control and influence (money is an indicator of theses things) like things the way they are. This is no puzzle since "the way things are" is the venue in which these people have power, control and influence. Therefore, they use that power to keep things the way they are.

While "right wing" might not apply. The traditional definition of conservative is one who opposes change.

It is no puzzle that those on the top do not want things to change.

 

ALL media in the US is owned and controlled by no more than FIVE corporations. Rupert Murdoch is NOT a conservative, and if you knew anything, you would know that he owns SEVERAL news outlets, not just in the US, but the UK and Australia as well. FOX News is just one of them, and most of the news outlets he runs are more to the left of FOX News. And FOX News is a REPUBLICAN news channel, not a CONSERVATIVE one. There is a BIG difference between the two!

Exactly. That is my point!

Again, many of his publications ARE to the Left. But it doesn't matter because whether it's to the "Left" or "Right", it's all geared to the globalist agenda. The talking points for BOTH sides have been written and scripted by the establishment.

No, because corporations are the government and vice versa. Big government and big business merged long ago. Our elected officials have been bought and paid off by these corporate interests they're working for. Yet, you look to big brother to save you from corporate greed? Amazing.

No. I believe the bias in the media is a bias dealing with disinformation, not Right wing or Left wing talking points, which are both under the same control anyway. However, when you study who really owns the media, you see that it's owned by globalist/socialist interests, not "conservative" ones. The media is largely owned by globalists and leftists, and that is a fact.

Yes, precisely.

Anyone who supports big government with unlimited power, elimination of national sovereignty to world government, increased government control over education. evisceration of property rights, and gun confiscation, is a socialist, and this fits the Democratic party as well as the Republican Party.

ANYONE who supports the globalist, one world government agenda is a SOCIALIST. PERIOD. I don't care what they call themselves.

No, Republicans are not what they say they are, and neither are the majority of so-called "conservatives", many of whom support globalism. This is why there is NO difference whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. If you follow the money, it always leads back to the same people.

The two are very much the same, despite what the bleeding hearts may tell you. Corporatism is the merger of the state and the corporation, which is what we have today. It can also be called fascism.

 

Rat, I can't help completely agreeing with you when you bring up the left/right debate being a shrill media constructed debate. They are a set of about three arguments apiece which both sides use to distract people from things that are more important.

 

Lodui

The problem is that when Rat talks about the left/right debate being bogus, he is actually talking as a right winger. To me it is a form of dishonestly like people that claim to be fair and balanced but are in fact very much biased.

He doesn’t actually like saying just how right wing he is but he is on record as saying he thinks the Republican party of Bush and the neo-cons is TOO LEFT WING.

Haven’t you noticed that he is high on slogans but low on substance, whenever someone actually wants to debate his views he is out of there.

Why is it that he attacks of left wing views (including Republicans) and has only praised right wing libertarianism?

He claims to want to bring down the rich but the political philosophy he praises would make the rich and powerful very much richer and more powerful and the very fact that he cannot defend those views against that accusation seems to imply he also knows this.

So why is a right winger hanging out on a leftish website telling people not to vote left wing because ‘the left and right are the same’, I ask you who do you think wins out if those left wingers don’t vote?

The right wing?

The rich and powerful maybe?

**

Rat dear friend

We have been through the anti-big government thing, and it still hinges on what you mean by ‘big’? It is clear from past discussions that you didn’t really seem to understand what you meant by it. That was a few months ago, have you thought any more about it or is it still just a slogan?

I have tried to talk to you about the national sovereignty thing but again you like saying it but you don’t seem to be able to talk about it.

Oh then there was the time I tried to talk to you about education, and you called me an ignoramus and ran away from the debate.

YES we know you think people that don’t agree with you are socialists (and literally believers in Satan) but what about a bit of substance in an open and honest debate rather than the same old empty rhetoric or do you fear being open and honest.

 

Well I certainly don't buy into any of the glass kingdoms of conspiracy that I hear repeated here. Not only because their vauge, offensive, and unrefrenced, but also because these people fester on misinformation. Then they criticize media for not paying attention to their babble.

I wouldn't say rats an overwhelming conservative. A lot of people in the libertarian camp are just insanly ferverent disestablishmentarians. Conservatives want lots of government to control gay marriges, abortions, etc. A lot in the libertarian camps want to tear down any sense of federal society and take the frontier experience back. Rat's views seem similar to this with a lot of jews and secret societies controlling everything we do.

But I still can't help but feeling somewhat disenfranchised with the political spectrum in the US. I'm very liberal on economic issues and somewhat more conservative in the sense of economy and military. Either way no party seems to offer me very much what I want, and even more both parties only harp their issues much around election year. In America left and right have a very common goal and thats keeping the 97% incumbency.

These guys think if a body isn't found, their elections wrapped up.

 

Balbus - if anyone is high on slogans and low on substance, it is you, buddy. I think it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I have never heard you once speak in terms of anything factual. It's always the same rehashed rhetoric. Then again, most of the posts you make are attacking ME, and all you ever do is repeat the same things over and over, like a broken record player. It's very boring. Nobody wants to read that.

Many of my views can be classified as RIGHT WING (in a staunchly classical conservative sense, not a neoconservative sense), and I don't deny this one bit. I detest socialism, statism, and collectivism in just about every way, and I am not afraid to admit that, either. It doesn't make me a "right winger" or a conservative, though, because I for one am not a follower, and there is always more to a picture than just black and white. There is always more than the two scripted sides of the debate portrayed by the media.

Besides, today there is so little difference between liberals and conservatives that the words are almost pointless to use. Liberalism once used to be about preserving constitutional rights (not only the ones they wanted to preserve) and limited government power. Liberalism has since been hijacked by socialism, and wants to destroy the Constitution in favor of an all-powerful world government controlled by an elite few. It's all about STATE CONTROL. Classical liberalism, which I support, was NEVER about that.

Conservatives are the same way. Conservatism was also once about limited government, but, as you can see today, Bush and his followers want nothing to do with conservatism in the classic sense, unless it has to do with religious issues like abortion and gay marriage. Most of today's so-called conservatives are every bit as big-government as the liberals, and are supporting a president who has done more to socialize this nation than anyone before him.

So my point is, EVERYTHING in politics is dominated by socialism, which is the tool of a one world government. Only the rhetoric differs to give people the false sense that they actually have a choice. Politics have become nothing more than a tool used to brainwash and polarize the masses, getting them arguing amongst themselves while failing to realize their common enemy, which is the state.

And I will say once again, Balbus, that Bush IS a leftist, because aside from all the religious bullshit, which is just a made-up front anyway (and his only "conservative" attribute), Bush is a staunch socialist who has spent more than any president before him, never vetoing a single spending bill. Bush has nearly tripled the size of government, while increasing government control over education at the same time. That is socialism! It might not be the idealistic, utopian socialism that bleeding hearts associate with the name, but it is socialism nevertheless. Socialism is the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the all-powerful state, and this is EXACTLY what we see happening.

 

It seems to me that socialism is not what is happening. I would describe Bush as a corporatist. He is not seeking government control of everything. He is seeking to free corporations from all external control, including that of government. His spending drained the US treasury into corporate coffers. (overused trite phrase, my bad)

The world that Bush is pushing has people dependant on their cell phone company, Walmart and Visa. Government control is not what he is after.

 

Corporatism is the blending of capitalism and socialism. It has far more to do with socialism than it does capitalism, because the capitalism we are referring to is monopoly capitalism, which is pretty much socialism defined.

Bush is not seeking to free corporations from external control, because they are already free of external control to the point that corporations are bigger than government. It is the corporations that control the government, not the other way around. Like I have been saying, our elected officials have all been bought and paid off by the corporations, and it is these corporate interests they are working for. Not the people's interests.

The merging of state and corporation is what we are dealing with. Neither is independent of the other, and, as I see it, both are one in the same if you know how to, as they say, "follow the money".

This has been going on for a long time, and it didn't start with Bush, though things have certainly accelerated since he's been in power.

 

Rat you have often accused me of not saying or explain what my opinions are, but the problem is that I have, I’m on record as having done so. You yourself have asked me direct questions and I have given you direct answers. I believe in honest and open debate.

If you want to ask me something about my political views go ahead and I’ll give you my opinion, but please Rat all I ask is that you do the same.

The big problem so far has been that you haven’t seemed to want to be involved in an open and honest debate.

For example you say that while many of your views are right wing that doesn’t make you a right winger, but in what ways are any of your view not fundamentally right wing in nature?

You say “I detest socialism, statism, and collectivism in just about every way, and I am not afraid to admit that, either”

Yes that is clear but as I’ve said stating something or just holding a viewpoint doesn’t make it correct, what you should be asking yourself is does that viewpoint stand up to criticism. The problem with you is that it doesn’t seem to, you have failed on many occasions to defend most of your opinions. What is clear from past thread is that often your views are based on irrational prejudice rather than anything of real substance.

Worse you just run away from threads where your views don’t seem to be standing up, only to begin other threads saying the exact same things you failed to defend in the last.

Also you seem happy to lie or contradict yourself. For example your claims of having answered questions when you clearly haven’t, or when you claim at one moment that your views are based on rational ‘evidence’ then at another time saying they are wholly down to you superior spiritual enlightenment.

This is what interests me about you, you seem to encapsulate many of the problems I see in US politics. Like the neo-cans you seem happy to present dodge ‘evidence’ or openly lie to try and strengthen you viewpoint and like the Christian right you believe your views are spiritually based and political policies are a matter of supporting the ‘forces of light’ against the ‘forces of darkness’, rather than about helping people.

You’re fascinating.

That’s why I really do wants to know all about you ideas and why you think they are still worth holding when you seem incapable of defending them?

 

Lodui

“But I still can't help but feeling somewhat disenfranchised with the political spectrum in the US”

That can happen anywhere, it is part of politics, changing things, if the political system is not working then try and change it.

It seems to me that the first thing someone needs to do is work out what their political views are and what their goals are. Next you find a political group that is closest to having those views and join it or support it.

(By the way when you say “I'm very liberal on economic issues and somewhat more conservative in the sense of economy and military” I’m presuming you meant ‘I'm very liberal on SOCIAL issues and somewhat more conservative in the sense of economy and military?’. If not please correct me)

One of the best ways to learn about where you stand politically is through debate, when you have to examine others ideas and defend your own (as long as this is done in an open and honest way) it can teach someone a lot about political perspectives and ideas.

I have said before that I’d not sure what people mean when they say they are ‘very liberal on social issues’ but ‘more conservative on economic issues’ because the two are so often very much entwined.

But then many people think social issues are such things as gay marriage and abortion, were as to me they are not exclusively left wing issues they are ‘rights’ issues that are championed by many left wingers. In my view (and many other left wingers) social issues are more about such quality of life fundamentals such as social exclusion, welfare provision and healthcare.

So I’d have to ask you what you mean by ‘social issues’ and ‘economic issues’ to understand what you mean by your statement.

**

You say that “In America left and right have a very common goal and that’s keeping the 97% incumbency”

But the Democrats and Republicans do not represent the “left and right” as many non-Americans have said if those political parties stood for election in most other democratic states they would be both seen as right wing parties.

Left wing and right wing stances cover a wide spectrum of ideas and philosophies from branches of left wing universal Anarchy to the extremes of right wing nationalistic libertarianism.

Or are you saying that the US communists, and the right wing libertarians have nearly the exact same goals?

Anyway as I’ve said maybe the best way to look at your views would be to discuss them, it’s an open forum so just pick a political subject you want to talk about and post away.

Love to hear from you.

Balbus