An Example Of Republican Free Market Tyranny: Gang Member To Multi-Millionaire CEO

This is one example of how the republican party allows business elites to ruin the national economy and progress of society. They have allowed business to be run like a criminal organization that profits from hurting the middle class instead of helping it.

The CEO in the article is seeking praise for using prison politics to gain an edge in the business world which is astounding because the bias in the article makes this look like a legitimate claim.

Everyone should note that this is what the free market will be if they continue to vote for republicans who allow businessmen the freedom to become more and more like criminals and make millions swindling the middle class as they did during the housing crisis. Responsible regulations by Democrats are needed so please vote democrat in the next election cycle.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/powe...p-nothing-lose-everything-gain-183145165.html

 

It's called the "American Dream."

If he was a minority or a woman you would be kissing his feet and praising his name.

 

Its a representation of a debilitated business structure allowed that way by too many freedoms given by the republican party...

These guys have no formal education and make millions swindling consumers out of their money, they have backgrounds in crime and poverty.

The system needs to reward intellectual business owners because they have the tools neccessary to create businesses that benefit society rather than harm the economy as seen in the housing crash...

 

This is the difference between progressivism and liberalism. Liberals believe in redemption, that someone who got off to a bad start can fundamentally change and achieve success in life and the past becomes meaningless. Progressives, like some conservatives, believe that the nature of a criminal cannot be changed, and so anything he does is tainted by his crimes, even if he creates wealth and prosperity for himself and others. The only criminals who can be redeemed are those who become progressive politicians, and then all is forgiven.d

A good reason to never believe the lie of the progressive when he claims to be compassionate. Those who have backgrounds of crime and poverty are to be coddled by the state, but can never fully join society because of that poverty or criminality that is fundamental to their nature (according to progressives.) Eugenics and abortion, and keeping those that remain on welfare, disarmed, disenfrachised, and firmly in their ghettos is the only solution.

Why you claim to be a liberal, I don't know. Nothing in your posts suggests it.

 

As I said, if he wasn't white you would be singing a different tune.

The "freedoms" you speak of were put in place by both parties.

 

Except for the criminal aspects. Pimpin' ain't easy, but I don't think it's the sort of hard work and innovation touted as free market successes.

It does illustrate my basic problem with the free market in practice, as opposed to the theory.

 

People with a background in crime and poverty cannot fully join society because criminality is fundamental to their nature....

They have to be rehabilitated by the government before they can properly function in these roles but the republicans allow them to disease general society with their immoral business practices

 

Race has nothing to do with this debate, please refrain from its reference.

 

Ok,so I see a kid,with dyslexia and ADD,a troubled youth that turned his life around to become a successful businessman.I see nothing "immoral" or any "tyranny" to what he has done.
Why is making money and profits to you Libs such an immoral crime?Do you ever stop to think he also created "jobs" with his company?
I see nothing illegal to what he has done at all.

 

So people in poverty should be kept in poverty instead of becoming successful?And that the Government should keep them locked up forever,or prohibit them from creating a business based on their criminal record?
How different is this from an employer discriminating against someone just released from jail and denying him a job even though he is very qualified?

 

This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen from you. Do you really think progressives think the poor and criminals are doomed to forever being poor or criminal? That's complete nonsense.

 

You'd better explain this. It makes you look pretty bad.

 

This has to be one of the biggest crocks of pure garbage ever posted at Political Forum.

What the post is saying is, some people are born criminals and will remain criminals unless the government, somehow reprograms their criminal genes.

I guess the poster thinks it would have been better had this person remained a gang member rather than leaving the gang life behind and starting a series of successful businesses.

It is really sad when a person so hates one political party that they would rather see people remain in poverty and criminality than better themselves because they see this betterment as somehow attached to the party they hate.

 

There are those pathetic people who rage at anyone who doesn't "know his place" and one big criteria for knowing your place is to be an ex-con. These pathetic people don't want you to ever improve your lot. You have the mark of Cain and don't you dare forget it. Now, get back on food stamps where you belong.

 

So why do we ever let anyone out of jail? It's in their nature right?

There is no political angle here, and you're making yourself look extremely foolish/childish.

 

Both the left and right want restrictions and regulations on business. The only difference is the left want to add so many of these they are more like running the business and getting to a point of even owning it. The right wants less of these in order to get out of the way so business can run more freely. This being done more out there will feel better on creating and running a business which will improve our economy.

The gov't needs to get out of the way on many items and run the gov't not the businesses.

 

no born into criminality but they can be rehabilitated thru government programs...

the point is not letting them use criminal business practices in the real world as the market allows today with too much freedoms for business owners.

 

So the guy was some sort of gang banger, so what? He apparently made something of him self.

 

You are absolutey correct, Joe Six-pack.

The next thing we will witness is "liberty minority" showing us re-runs of "Star Trek'' episodes to justify his far-Left political positions!

This video will help him get a grip on reality.

Hundreds of racist Black youths attack Whites at Wisconsin State Fair

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4F8ob9nlfY&feature=related"]Hundreds of racist Black youths attack Whites at Wisconsin State Fair - YouTube[/ame]

 

Okay, I looked at the article again, and to be honest I'm not sure where I got the idea that his criminality segued into his entrepeneurialism. The article does make it sound like he's just a clever guy who learned how to make things work, not someone who exploited others. He's not one of those people who made a million dollars through theft and thuggery and then turned that into a billion through investment.

So, yeah. Success story, it looks like.

 

Are you talking about Van Jones?

 

Ahem......There is no point. You are completely out of your element here. Monetary success =/= criminal.

 

You should probably learn more about the history of progressivism. Why true liberals get in bed with them, I'll never understand. They have you all duped. That's why I've moved away from my leftist roots toward libertarianism and the non-violent political ideology.

 

Liberal is a term that is bandied about all too often. Considering that we have discussed similar topics, I am uncertain as to whether or not I am supposed to be a liberal or a progressive.

I would have called myself a progressive (as I don't identify with the Democrats in the U.S., the most common designation of liberal) but from the above I am a seeming liberal.

 

You are correct, it can get quite confusing. I think of liberal as someone who is devoted to freedom and non-violence. They may be misguided (from my perspective) into thinking that they best way to achieve that goal is through government intervention or they may not. This was the tradition in which I grew up - anti-violence, anti-war, pro-personal freedom, pro-religious freedom, follow your conscious, etc. Unions and a strong regulatory framework protected economic freedom, consumers, etc. I think you agree with that, no?

Progressives, on the other hand, are not anti-war (World War I was their defining moment). They are not for personal freedom (Prohibition and the Harrison Act were progressive measures.) I think they would see religion dispensed with or at least subordinated to the state. One's conscious should only be followed if it is not "base" in nature. Eugenics was a progressive program.

Smoking out progressives is easy. Just look to whether someone who claims to be a liberal also wants to stamp out the sins that he/she sees infesting society. Whether that be the criminal element, or poverty (treated as a sin rather than a condition to be sympathized with), or drug use (treated as a criminal sickness), or a variety of other things.

Like libertarians and conservatives seem to have similar goals, liberals and progressives seem to have the same thing. Yet, it's often the progressives who gain the most political power because they are the most authoritarian. Again, similar to authoritarian conservatives winning out over freedom minded libertarians. The neocons are pretty much the progressive wing of the conservative movement. They don't like the coddling of welfare, but they do want to stamp out the sins of society through government intervention.