| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Psycho Dave" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2004 04:56:42 PM |
| Object: |
What does "America" mean to you now? |
Forgive my cynnicism, but I'm thinking that America has no more
meaning for me now than wonder bread. After having been born here,
lived here all my life, and now this idiotic period we're in, I'm
starting to feel like many Jews felt during the rise of nazi Germany.
America, is, after all, rapidly turning into a fascist state run by
corporate interests. These corporate interests are psychopathic in
nature, and care only about money and profit, and damn anyone who gets
in their way. This sentiment has been taught to generation after
generation over the last century to the extent that we practically
worship money, and all political questions seem to end up being about
money.
It wouldn't make any difference to me if i lived in America or
Switzerland, France, Denmark, Germany, Australia, or any of the other
more civilized nations. Anything to get away from the
shoot-from-the-hip cowboy capitalists who screw citizens and laugh all
the way to the bank. America is simple too overloaded with pathetic
problems that cannot be solved due to the mass-marketing of stupidity.
With creationists and Christian fundamentalists screwing up public
education by injecting nonsense into school curriculae, and pretty
much barring any legitimate, intelligent discussion of sex to kids,
and the conservatives trying to destroy public education, how can my
kids have a good education without me going broke trying to do pay for
a good school?
Then we have all the corporations with their hands in the government
using our tax dollars to line their own pockets. We're back to
fighting wars so that corporations involved in the war industries can
get rich quick. We're rapidly heading back to the days of
robber-barons and company-towns. We've got government that is so
prudish and idiotic that it can't stand a single breast being on
television.
When I see those little American flags on cars, I think "Now there's a
right jackass!" The flag means nothing to me anymore. America is no
longer the nation I grew up in. It's becoming a horrible place where
idiotic rednecks berate people for whom English is a second language,
where we'd rather disenfranchise whole sectors of the population who
speak Spanish just so some WASPS won't get annoyed at their
foreign-ness, and a place where they still won't pass the ERA to give
women equal protection under the law.
Terrorists aren't out there bombing the Swiss, The Norwiegans, The
Dutch, The Swedes, The Finnish, the Germans, or the Belgians. Heck,
nobody has bombed France for a while, either. Maybe it's because these
countries do not have a rude foreign policy that amounts to "screw you
all, we'll do as we please!"
It looks to me like America is too broken to get fixed by legitimate
means. It could take forever to fix all the problems with the ballot
box, especially with all the crooks running the government. Maybe it's
time to just say screw it, and pick a more civil and socially advanced
society to live in. Who needs the red-white-and-blue anymore? Why
should I have any aliegience to it any more? I could be living in a
better place in weeks. Sure, I'd miss my family and friends, but when
you're looking for a better life, you can't let these things hold you
back.
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
28 Sep 2004 05:37:21 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409281356.334595ee@posting.google.com:
Forgive my cynnicism, but I'm thinking that America has no more
meaning for me now than wonder bread. After having been born here,
lived here all my life, and now this idiotic period we're in, I'm
starting to feel like many Jews felt during the rise of nazi Germany.
America, is, after all, rapidly turning into a fascist state run by
corporate interests. These corporate interests are psychopathic in
nature, and care only about money and profit, and damn anyone who gets
in their way. This sentiment has been taught to generation after
generation over the last century to the extent that we practically
worship money, and all political questions seem to end up being about
money.
It wouldn't make any difference to me if i lived in America or
Switzerland, France, Denmark, Germany, Australia, or any of the other
more civilized nations. Anything to get away from the
shoot-from-the-hip cowboy capitalists who screw citizens and laugh all
the way to the bank. America is simple too overloaded with pathetic
problems that cannot be solved due to the mass-marketing of stupidity.
Wow, dude, quoted right out of Chomsky. Maybe you've been getting too
much negative propaganda in your diet.
No, seriously.
http://www.antichomsky.blogspot.com./
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
29 Sep 2004 08:46:41 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9572BD7404B02fstone69@207.69.189.192>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409281356.334595ee@posting.google.com:
Wow, dude, quoted right out of Chomsky. Maybe you've been getting too
much negative propaganda in your diet.
No, seriously.
http://www.antichomsky.blogspot.com./
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
You know what's funny about the people who criticize Chomsky? Nearly
all of them say that he's a moron, despite his world-renoun academic
credentials and clout. Nearly all of them say that he "hates America",
without actually substantiating that with a quote. Apparently
criticism of the government's foreign policy amounts to "hating
America" in their book.
Freddy, you have your jingoism confused with patriotism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
29 Sep 2004 11:53:21 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409290546.49700653@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9572BD7404B02fstone69@207.69.189.192>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409281356.334595ee@posting.google.com:
Wow, dude, quoted right out of Chomsky. Maybe you've been getting too
much negative propaganda in your diet.
No, seriously.
http://www.antichomsky.blogspot.com./
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
You know what's funny about the people who criticize Chomsky? Nearly
all of them say that he's a moron, despite his world-renoun academic
credentials and clout. Nearly all of them say that he "hates America",
without actually substantiating that with a quote. Apparently
criticism of the government's foreign policy amounts to "hating
America" in their book.
Freddy, you have your jingoism confused with patriotism.
You didn't actually *read* any of their criticism, did you?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
30 Sep 2004 07:57:35 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9573831E6A27Efstone69@207.69.189.194>...
You didn't actually *read* any of their criticism, did you?
I sure did. Most of it amounts to "How dare he say that!" A lot of the
criticism, especially with the link you provided, comes from
supporters of Israel who object to his suggestion that Israel is a
terrorist state by the US State Department's own definition. Chomsky
correctly points out that when our government defines terms, such as
"what is a terrorist state", it often makes careless generalizations
that allow for our allies like Israel, and our own country, to be
included. If a terrorist state is one which uses it's military to
attack civilian targets in another sovereign country, without
declaring war, then Israel fits that definition, and so doesn't the
USA.
David Horowitz is a jingoist and a whack-job. His criticisms of
Chomsky amount to "That dirty commie pinko *****!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
30 Sep 2004 08:53:52 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409300457.24fde95e@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9573831E6A27Efstone69@207.69.189.194>...
You didn't actually *read* any of their criticism, did you?
I sure did. Most of it amounts to "How dare he say that!" A lot of the
criticism, especially with the link you provided, comes from
supporters of Israel who object to his suggestion that Israel is a
terrorist state by the US State Department's own definition. Chomsky
correctly points out that when our government defines terms, such as
"what is a terrorist state", it often makes careless generalizations
that allow for our allies like Israel, and our own country, to be
included.
Only because Chomsky himself is making further, erroneous
generalizations and omitting important but inconvenient qualifiers.
His reparsing and paraphrasis of the infamous "PNAC" document is another
case in point. Not to mention that the said document in no way
represents official US policy, no matter how many US officials have put
their signatures to it.
If a terrorist state is one which uses it's military to
attack civilian targets in another sovereign country, without
declaring war, then Israel fits that definition, and so doesn't the
USA.
And there is a perfect example. The omission of terms like
"indiscriminate" and "deliberate" come to mind.
David Horowitz is a jingoist and a whack-job. His criticisms of
Chomsky amount to "That dirty commie pinko *****!"
So, the defense of Chomsky against namecalling is to call his critics
names?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
30 Sep 2004 04:29:08 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957464AFFC872fstone69@207.69.189.194>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409300457.24fde95e@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9573831E6A27Efstone69@207.69.189.194>...
You didn't actually *read* any of their criticism, did you?
I sure did. Most of it amounts to "How dare he say that!" A lot of the
criticism, especially with the link you provided, comes from
supporters of Israel who object to his suggestion that Israel is a
terrorist state by the US State Department's own definition. Chomsky
correctly points out that when our government defines terms, such as
"what is a terrorist state", it often makes careless generalizations
that allow for our allies like Israel, and our own country, to be
included.
Only because Chomsky himself is making further, erroneous
generalizations and omitting important but inconvenient qualifiers.
Such as?
His reparsing and paraphrasis of the infamous "PNAC" document is another
case in point. Not to mention that the said document in no way
represents official US policy, no matter how many US officials have put
their signatures to it.
You don't even have to use that to justify calling Israel and the USA
terrorist states. We secretly backed the unwarranted coup of Chile in
1973, and supported the dictator Augusto Pinichet. Nixon secretly
bombed Cambodia after he said he'd end the war. Heck, in 1958, we
invaded Iran, dismantled it's pro-western, democratic government, and
installed the Shah, who, with our support, opressed Islam for the next
25 years. We also installed dictators in central and South American
nations for the sole purpose of proteecting the profits of fruit
companies. All of these actions qualify as terrorist acts.
If a terrorist state is one which uses it's military to
attack civilian targets in another sovereign country, without
declaring war, then Israel fits that definition, and so doesn't the
USA.
And there is a perfect example. The omission of terms like
"indiscriminate" and "deliberate" come to mind.
Terrorists do not have to be "indiscriminate". A political assassin
who snipes a president in a motorcade is a terrorist. He was not being
indiscriminate.
David Horowitz is a jingoist and a whack-job. His criticisms of
Chomsky amount to "That dirty commie pinko *****!"
So, the defense of Chomsky against namecalling is to call his critics
names?
No, that's just me keeping the conversation interesting. But Hororwitz
is a whack-job. He's right up there with Pat Buchanan, William J.
Bennett, and Bill O'Reilly on the list of "Douchebags for Liberty".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
30 Sep 2004 04:54:14 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409301329.45b04b1e@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns957464AFFC872fstone69@207.69.189.194>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0409300457.24fde95e@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9573831E6A27Efstone69@207.69.189.194>...
You didn't actually *read* any of their criticism, did you?
I sure did. Most of it amounts to "How dare he say that!" A lot of
the criticism, especially with the link you provided, comes from
supporters of Israel who object to his suggestion that Israel is a
terrorist state by the US State Department's own definition.
Chomsky correctly points out that when our government defines
terms, such as "what is a terrorist state", it often makes careless
generalizations that allow for our allies like Israel, and our own
country, to be included.
Only because Chomsky himself is making further, erroneous
generalizations and omitting important but inconvenient qualifiers.
Such as?
Well, if we take your definition of "terrorist acts" below, then every
country on earth is a terrorist state. But of course Chomsky only
applies his definitions to Israel and the US.
His reparsing and paraphrasis of the infamous "PNAC" document is
another case in point. Not to mention that the said document in no
way represents official US policy, no matter how many US officials
have put their signatures to it.
You don't even have to use that to justify calling Israel and the USA
terrorist states. We secretly backed the unwarranted coup of Chile in
1973, and supported the dictator Augusto Pinichet. Nixon secretly
bombed Cambodia after he said he'd end the war. Heck, in 1958, we
invaded Iran, dismantled it's pro-western, democratic government, and
installed the Shah, who, with our support, opressed Islam for the next
25 years. We also installed dictators in central and South American
nations for the sole purpose of proteecting the profits of fruit
companies. All of these actions qualify as terrorist acts.
Actually, none of those qualify as terrorist acts. They were, many of
them, stupid foreign policy, feebly justified by opposition to the USSR
but that doesn't make them terrorist acts.
If a terrorist state is one which uses it's military to
attack civilian targets in another sovereign country, without
declaring war, then Israel fits that definition, and so doesn't the
USA.
And there is a perfect example. The omission of terms like
"indiscriminate" and "deliberate" come to mind.
Terrorists do not have to be "indiscriminate". A political assassin
who snipes a president in a motorcade is a terrorist. He was not being
indiscriminate.
Ah, this is a definition of "terrorist" that is all-inclusive.
The usual definition that I see operative in US policy has several
parts. One, the deliberate, indiscriminate targeting of *civilians*
during peacetime. This is as opposed to the possible accidental killing
of civilians in a planned assault on a military installation.
Two, the use of combatants who do not wear specifically identifiable
uniforms nor belong to an identifiable command structure.
David Horowitz is a jingoist and a whack-job. His criticisms of
Chomsky amount to "That dirty commie pinko *****!"
So, the defense of Chomsky against namecalling is to call his critics
names?
No, that's just me keeping the conversation interesting. But Hororwitz
is a whack-job. He's right up there with Pat Buchanan, William J.
Bennett, and Bill O'Reilly on the list of "Douchebags for Liberty".
Buchanan and Bennett can be pretty scary, and I'm pretty ruthless myself
at times. I'll give you that, but they aren't always whackos. Some of
their stuff at least requires thought. Same for Horowitz. O'Reilly is a
joke maybe a step above Limbaugh on a good day.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
01 Oct 2004 04:36:48 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9574B6237671Cfstone69@207.69.189.192>...
Only because Chomsky himself is making further, erroneous
generalizations and omitting important but inconvenient qualifiers.
Such as?
Well, if we take your definition of "terrorist acts" below, then every
country on earth is a terrorist state.
Sweden? Norway? Finland? I mean, not unless you go way back into their
history will you find those nations committing anything resembling
terrorism. Even in WW2, the nazis conquered them without a shot --
they just marched in and took over. Switzerland hasn't been involved
in any wars, much less military actions for over 150 years.
But I agree -- France committed terrorist acts in Algeria. England
committed terrorist acts against South Africans and Australians. Maybe
Chomsky, like myself is outraged that the US and it's leaders keep
propping us up as the friendliest, most trustworthy nation on earth,
when we are, in fact, boiling over with irrational hatred (KKK,
Neonazis, conservative talk radio, etc), and we have actually
doublecrossed a lot of nations that trusted us.
But of course Chomsky only
applies his definitions to Israel and the US.
Maybe it's because he is addressing US foreign policy, of which,
irrational and automatic support for anything Israel does, is a part
of. I disagree with our two-faced policy. We should have the balls to
tell Israel that we will stop supporting them if they continue to
treat persians and palestinians as second class citizens. They way
they treat them makes the way white racists in the south treated
blacks 50 years ago look like love.
Actually, none of those qualify as terrorist acts. They were, many of
them, stupid foreign policy, feebly justified by opposition to the USSR
but that doesn't make them terrorist acts.
I think that supporting a dictator who tortures people, and hiding it
from the American public is terrorism.
Terrorists do not have to be "indiscriminate". A political assassin
who snipes a president in a motorcade is a terrorist. He was not being
indiscriminate.
Ah, this is a definition of "terrorist" that is all-inclusive.
The usual definition that I see operative in US policy has several
parts. One, the deliberate, indiscriminate targeting of *civilians*
during peacetime.
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand. Need I say more? Nixon never targetted any
Viet Cong camps when he bombed cambodia. The bombers flew over jungle
where they couldn't even see below the canopy. They had no real
intelligence on who was there. They just bombed large sections, hoping
to hit some Viet Cong, but ended up killing far more civilians. They
kept this secret because they knew it was dirty, and that the American
public wouldn't like it.
Buchanan and Bennett can be pretty scary, and I'm pretty ruthless myself
at times. I'll give you that, but they aren't always whackos. Some of
their stuff at least requires thought. Same for Horowitz. O'Reilly is a
joke maybe a step above Limbaugh on a good day.
I think it was Bill Bennett who wrote a book about "The Death of the
West", where he blamed all of America's problems on "those damn dirty
ape... I mean Immigrants." Virtually every argument he made had a
modicum of fact, but it was wrong, because he virtually glossed over
the negative contributions to our society that came from English
Speaking and/or white Europeans. It was the racism of the white
settlers that often made immigrants (and natives) lives a living hell,
and we still treat a lot of them pretty crappy.
Perhaps we should restart this discussion by discussing exactly what
it is about my post that you have objections to? I mean, I place a
very low value on things like Patriotism, flags, heros, and "leaders".
That is why nationalism, patriotism, and the people who equate those
thing with "freedom" and "liberty" make me sick. We don't need to get
involved with the primitive desires of uneducated people to have some
kind of "identity". Ideneity is for cro magnons, not 21st century man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
04 Oct 2004 02:57:58 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in message news:<ea202634.0410011336.7338e669@posting.google.com>...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9574B6237671Cfstone69@207.69.189.192>...
Only because Chomsky himself is making further, erroneous
generalizations and omitting important but inconvenient qualifiers.
Such as?
Well, if we take your definition of "terrorist acts" below, then every
country on earth is a terrorist state.
Sweden? Norway? Finland? I mean, not unless you go way back into their
history will you find those nations committing anything resembling
terrorism. Even in WW2, the nazis conquered them without a shot --
they just marched in and took over. Switzerland hasn't been involved
in any wars, much less military actions for over 150 years.
eh?
The nazis conquered Finland, Norway and Sweden without a shot?
1) The only country of those above that the nazis took over was Norway
and that was certainly not done without a shot. The Norwegians did
what they could... killed some Krauts, sank a ship or two. But a
country of 4 million people can only do that much against a power like
Germany...
2) Finland's main enemy in that was was not Germany but Russia. The
Finns were the only European country bordering the USSR which wasn't
occupied. And that wasn't exactly achieved "without a shot" either.
3) Sweden. Well... the nazis did march through without shots being
fired but the country wasnt strictly speaking "taken over".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
05 Oct 2004 09:10:34 AM |
|
|
(Marcus Andersson) wrote in message
1) The only country of those above that the nazis took over was Norway
and that was certainly not done without a shot. The Norwegians did
what they could... killed some Krauts, sank a ship or two. But a
country of 4 million people can only do that much against a power like
Germany...
2) Finland's main enemy in that was was not Germany but Russia. The
Finns were the only European country bordering the USSR which wasn't
occupied. And that wasn't exactly achieved "without a shot" either.
3) Sweden. Well... the nazis did march through without shots being
fired but the country wasnt strictly speaking "taken over".
Okay, but you missed the point. The point was that the countries
mentioned have not exported any foreign wars, or even participated in
any war to any extent, and possibly the number one reason why they are
never targets of terrorists is because of that. All of the nations
targetted by terrorists have opressed other nations or ethnic groups
within their own lands in brutal, sometimes criminal ways. Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Iceland have not. That was the
point. If America adopted a foreign policy based on fairness and
goodwill, rather than our typical "Give us everything we want, and
screw anyone who steps in our way" policy, we would likely not have a
problem with terrorists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
05 Oct 2004 09:19:19 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in news:ea202634.0410050610.41c696b7
@posting.google.com:
marc_and_98@hotmail.com (Marcus Andersson) wrote in message
1) The only country of those above that the nazis took over was
Norway
and that was certainly not done without a shot. The Norwegians did
what they could... killed some Krauts, sank a ship or two. But a
country of 4 million people can only do that much against a power
like
Germany...
2) Finland's main enemy in that was was not Germany but Russia. The
Finns were the only European country bordering the USSR which wasn't
occupied. And that wasn't exactly achieved "without a shot" either.
3) Sweden. Well... the nazis did march through without shots being
fired but the country wasnt strictly speaking "taken over".
Okay, but you missed the point. The point was that the countries
mentioned have not exported any foreign wars, or even participated in
any war to any extent, and possibly the number one reason why they are
never targets of terrorists is because of that. All of the nations
targetted by terrorists have opressed other nations or ethnic groups
within their own lands in brutal, sometimes criminal ways. Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Iceland have not. That was the
point. If America adopted a foreign policy based on fairness and
goodwill, rather than our typical "Give us everything we want, and
screw anyone who steps in our way" policy, we would likely not have a
problem with terrorists.
If we had an economy that was as small as any of those states, perhaps.
But that "Give us everything we want.." is more like "Sell us everything
you've got..." and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
05 Oct 2004 06:26:49 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957969022CAA1fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Iceland...
If we had an economy that was as small as any of those states, perhaps.
Those countries all participate in the same global marketplace that we
do. We buy their stuff, they buy our stuff. They buy stuff all over
the world, and sell stuff all over the world.
But that "Give us everything we want.." is more like "Sell us everything
you've got..."
Not really. It's more like "Give us all the trade concessions that we
ask for --all the special deals that we ask for... and we will give
you few, if any, that you ask for from us..." US corporations are
always brokering deals that are lop-sided and give them unfair
advantages. They love to go to nations that have a sense of
desperation about joining the global market and better their citizens'
lives (like China, Vietnam, Mexico), and take advantage of that
desperation for profit.
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries hate
us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
05 Oct 2004 06:42:38 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410051526.2d1ac78f@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns957969022CAA1fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Iceland...
If we had an economy that was as small as any of those states,
perhaps.
Those countries all participate in the same global marketplace that we
do. We buy their stuff, they buy our stuff. They buy stuff all over
the world, and sell stuff all over the world.
But that "Give us everything we want.." is more like "Sell us
everything you've got..."
Not really. It's more like "Give us all the trade concessions that we
ask for --all the special deals that we ask for... and we will give
you few, if any, that you ask for from us..." US corporations are
always brokering deals that are lop-sided and give them unfair
advantages. They love to go to nations that have a sense of
desperation about joining the global market and better their citizens'
lives (like China, Vietnam, Mexico), and take advantage of that
desperation for profit.
They can always sell to those other countries that "all participate in
the same global economy as we do..."
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries hate
us.
And then we make it even worse because *we don't care*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
07 Oct 2004 11:25:09 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9579C886AC6FFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
They can always sell to those other countries that "all participate in
the same global economy as we do..."
Ah, yes, the classic conservative "Don't like our terms, then screw
you all!" brand or reasoning. Such an attitude can only breed
contempt.
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries hate
us.
And then we make it even worse because *we don't care*.
And that's just affirmation of what I've already said. The
conservatives in America simply don't care what others think about
what they do. Because they don't care, they are bad for international
relations. Heck, the "screw you" attitude of corporate America makes a
lot of people in our own country hate them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
07 Oct 2004 02:42:04 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410070825.414f4a37@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9579C886AC6FFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
They can always sell to those other countries that "all participate
in the same global economy as we do..."
Ah, yes, the classic conservative "Don't like our terms, then screw
you all!" brand or reasoning. Such an attitude can only breed
contempt.
Nobody wants to force you to buy their products. But we won't be forced
to sell at unfavorable terms either.
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries
hate us.
And then we make it even worse because *we don't care*.
And that's just affirmation of what I've already said. The
conservatives in America simply don't care what others think about
what they do. Because they don't care, they are bad for international
relations. Heck, the "screw you" attitude of corporate America makes a
lot of people in our own country hate them.
Oh well hey, we care more about our customers than about whiny snivelers
who want to complain about our profit motives.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
08 Oct 2004 07:51:18 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957B9FBAA9F06fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410070825.414f4a37@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9579C886AC6FFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
They can always sell to those other countries that "all participate
in the same global economy as we do..."
Ah, yes, the classic conservative "Don't like our terms, then screw
you all!" brand or reasoning. Such an attitude can only breed
contempt.
Nobody wants to force you to buy their products. But we won't be forced
to sell at unfavorable terms either.
That's not the point. The point is the complete lack of any good will.
The point is that corporations, especialyl in America care far more
about money and profit than they do about the consequences of their
actions or about the quality of life of their workers, or the people
affected by their activities. It has the effect on society and
international relations that is bad for us. Cheap prices for consumers
and big profits are not worth the creation of internation hatred
against us, terrorists, and wars.
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor and
oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries
hate us.
And then we make it even worse because *we don't care*.
And that's just affirmation of what I've already said. The
conservatives in America simply don't care what others think about
what they do. Because they don't care, they are bad for international
relations. Heck, the "screw you" attitude of corporate America makes a
lot of people in our own country hate them.
Oh well hey, we care more about our customers than about whiny snivelers
who want to complain about our profit motives.
Do you think for one second that anyone's going to believe that the
same corporations who use prison-labor, who use foreign sweatshops
full of under-aged child workers, and who give subsidies to dictators
in the countries where their factories are, and the same companies who
cut their own workers pay and benefits while giving CEOs gigantic
raises and golden parachutes "care more about their customers" (or
anyone else for that matter) than anything?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
08 Oct 2004 08:12:23 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410080451.bb9fb9e@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns957B9FBAA9F06fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410070825.414f4a37@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9579C886AC6FFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
They can always sell to those other countries that "all
participate in the same global economy as we do..."
Ah, yes, the classic conservative "Don't like our terms, then screw
you all!" brand or reasoning. Such an attitude can only breed
contempt.
Nobody wants to force you to buy their products. But we won't be
forced to sell at unfavorable terms either.
That's not the point. The point is the complete lack of any good will.
The point is that corporations, especialyl in America care far more
about money and profit than they do about the consequences of their
actions or about the quality of life of their workers, or the people
affected by their activities.
You don't seem to be understanding that profit is one of the
"consequences of their actions".
It has the effect on society and
international relations that is bad for us. Cheap prices for consumers
and big profits are not worth the creation of internation hatred
against us, terrorists, and wars.
No problem, you are welcome to pay higher prices for "socially
responsible" products.
and some people just don't like the idea that we aren't
really interested in buying their sob stories about how poor
and oppressed they are.
And with an attitude like that, it's no wonder so many countries
hate us.
And then we make it even worse because *we don't care*.
And that's just affirmation of what I've already said. The
conservatives in America simply don't care what others think about
what they do. Because they don't care, they are bad for
international relations. Heck, the "screw you" attitude of
corporate America makes a lot of people in our own country hate
them.
Oh well hey, we care more about our customers than about whiny
snivelers who want to complain about our profit motives.
Do you think for one second that anyone's going to believe that the
same corporations who use prison-labor, who use foreign sweatshops
full of under-aged child workers,
Those under-aged child workers would be working hard labor in the fields
for a lot less compensation if Nike wasn't there making basketball
shoes.
and who give subsidies to dictators
in the countries where their factories are,
Those are usually called "bribes" or "kickbacks".
and the same companies who
cut their own workers pay and benefits while giving CEOs gigantic
raises and golden parachutes "care more about their customers" (or
anyone else for that matter) than anything?
Of course they care about what their customers want. If you don't want
the products, don't buy them. It's really that simple.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
19 Oct 2004 10:40:51 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957C5DA7DC9C6fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
You don't seem to be understanding that profit is one of the
"consequences of their actions".
AH, so if the consequences of slave, youth, prison, or otherwise
coerced, captive labor is big profits, then it's perfectly okay. If
workers are abused, work in poor conditions, or consumers are deceived
or harmed, who cares, as long as the profit is good. And who cares if
you break laws, as long as the profit is good...
It has the effect on society and
international relations that is bad for us. Cheap prices for consumers
and big profits are not worth the creation of internation hatred
against us, terrorists, and wars.
No problem, you are welcome to pay higher prices for "socially
responsible" products.
That's not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be a need for
socially responsible products. Companies should not be in the business
of harming people for profit. RE: Tobacco Products.
Those under-aged child workers would be working hard labor in the fields
for a lot less compensation if Nike wasn't there making basketball
shoes.
Is there something wrong with a lifestyle that doesn't require one to
make lots of money to buy consumer products? Is there something wrong
with being a subsistance farmer, and making everything for yourself? I
don't think there need be a stigma on subsistance farming.
and who give subsidies to dictators
in the countries where their factories are,
Those are usually called "bribes" or "kickbacks".
Yes, and they are undesireable.
and the same companies who
cut their own workers pay and benefits while giving CEOs gigantic
raises and golden parachutes "care more about their customers" (or
anyone else for that matter) than anything?
Of course they care about what their customers want. If you don't want
the products, don't buy them. It's really that simple.
Not true. Most consumers do not research anything about the companies
that make their products, much less the products available. Take the
Corvair, for example. Chevy put out a cool-looking car that people
looked at, and desired. They also happened to make it the single most
dangerous car on the road, and they were well aware of it's danger
when they put it on the market. As the lawsuit against Chevrolet
proved, Chevrolet tried to supress the information on how dangerous
the car was, and rather than fix the problem, they chose profit over
the safety of their customers. It's esimated that at least 300
peoplewere killed or injured because of that defect. Chevy really
cared about their customers, didn't it?
And what about the tobacco companies? History has proven that they
deliberately supressed all sorts of information on their products, and
even tried to say that smoking was healthy for you, when all
scientific tests showed otherwise. The smoking of tobacco products
causes thousands of deaths anually, which must show how much the
tobacco companies care...
American drug manufacturers must really care about their American
customers, because they charge them so much more than customers from
other countries. They must really care about the elderly and the sick,
because they actively try to ban the import of their drugs from
Canada.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
19 Oct 2004 12:26:17 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410190740.7a558435@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns957C5DA7DC9C6fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
You don't seem to be understanding that profit is one of the
"consequences of their actions".
AH, so if the consequences of slave, youth, prison, or otherwise
coerced, captive labor is big profits, then it's perfectly okay. If
workers are abused, work in poor conditions, or consumers are deceived
or harmed, who cares, as long as the profit is good. And who cares if
you break laws, as long as the profit is good...
I said "one of the consequences" not "the only consequence" or "the only
important consequence". If one of the other consequences is that I go to
jail, I might reconsider my huge profits.
It has the effect on society and
international relations that is bad for us. Cheap prices for
consumers and big profits are not worth the creation of internation
hatred against us, terrorists, and wars.
No problem, you are welcome to pay higher prices for "socially
responsible" products.
That's not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be a need for
socially responsible products. Companies should not be in the business
of harming people for profit. RE: Tobacco Products.
And now that we understand how harmful tobacco products are, tobacco
consumers are getting help with their addictions. As I am quite familiar
with addictions I can say that making addictive drugs illegal doesn't do
a whole lot towards cutting demand.
Those under-aged child workers would be working hard labor in the
fields for a lot less compensation if Nike wasn't there making
basketball shoes.
Is there something wrong with a lifestyle that doesn't require one to
make lots of money to buy consumer products? Is there something wrong
with being a subsistance farmer, and making everything for yourself? I
don't think there need be a stigma on subsistance farming.
Who said anything about a stigma? If they're happier working hard labor
in the fields for no profit, more power to them. I think you should
leave that decision up to them and Nike though.
and who give subsidies to dictators
in the countries where their factories are,
Those are usually called "bribes" or "kickbacks".
Yes, and they are undesireable.
and the same companies who
cut their own workers pay and benefits while giving CEOs gigantic
raises and golden parachutes "care more about their customers" (or
anyone else for that matter) than anything?
Of course they care about what their customers want. If you don't
want the products, don't buy them. It's really that simple.
Not true. Most consumers do not research anything about the companies
that make their products, much less the products available. Take the
Corvair, for example. Chevy put out a cool-looking car that people
looked at, and desired. They also happened to make it the single most
dangerous car on the road, and they were well aware of it's danger
when they put it on the market. As the lawsuit against Chevrolet
proved, Chevrolet tried to supress the information on how dangerous
the car was, and rather than fix the problem, they chose profit over
the safety of their customers. It's esimated that at least 300
peoplewere killed or injured because of that defect. Chevy really
cared about their customers, didn't it?
Yes, and a few trial lawyers got rich, and so did Ralph Nader, and now
Chevrolet pays attention to things like safety.
And what about the tobacco companies? History has proven that they
deliberately supressed all sorts of information on their products, and
even tried to say that smoking was healthy for you, when all
scientific tests showed otherwise. The smoking of tobacco products
causes thousands of deaths anually, which must show how much the
tobacco companies care...
American drug manufacturers must really care about their American
customers, because they charge them so much more than customers from
other countries. They must really care about the elderly and the sick,
because they actively try to ban the import of their drugs from
Canada.
The drug makes care about staying in business. Canada gets cheap prices
partially because Americans effectively subsidize the Canadian
goverments' ability to negotiate lower prices. Recent developments in
that scenario suggest that the basic economics of supply and demand, if
allowed to operate, will quickly even out the prices across the border
so that Canadians will no longer have that price advantage.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
20 Oct 2004 08:50:26 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns958788B5D4DFAfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410190740.7a558435@posting.google.com:
AH, so if the consequences of slave, youth, prison, or otherwise
coerced, captive labor is big profits, then it's perfectly okay. If
workers are abused, work in poor conditions, or consumers are deceived
or harmed, who cares, as long as the profit is good. And who cares if
you break laws, as long as the profit is good...
I said "one of the consequences" not "the only consequence" or "the only
important consequence". If one of the other consequences is that I go to
jail, I might reconsider my huge profits.
**OR** what a lot of big corporations do, bribe the politicians so
that the law will ignore you, and if that doesn't work, use you
lawyers to obfuscate the justice system and pin the blame on some
underlings, or do what Walmart does -- the fines for constantly
violating US laws (like immigration laws, overtime laws, and other
employment laws) are much smaller than their annual profit, so they
keep violating the laws, because it's just another business expense to
them. Who cares that they force people to work overtime without paying
them for it, or that they hire illegal immigrants to clean up. They
sell really cheap, and that's what's important. CHEAP.
No problem, you are welcome to pay higher prices for "socially
responsible" products.
That's not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be a need for
socially responsible products. Companies should not be in the business
of harming people for profit. RE: Tobacco Products.
And now that we understand how harmful tobacco products are, tobacco
consumers are getting help with their addictions. As I am quite familiar
with addictions I can say that making addictive drugs illegal doesn't do
a whole lot towards cutting demand.
But we taxpayers still subsidize tobacco products. LIke it or not,
your taxes are paying to keep Philip Morris in business, because some
wise southern gentlemen in congress decided that keeping the tobacco
industry from going bankrupt was a good idea. Those poor farmers are
just too stupid to learn how to grow corn, wheat, or potatoes. We need
to keep them doing their "traditional" work because it's good for
America!
But millions of Americans still use tobacco, and millions of other,
who don't even smoke them, suffer the affects of the smoke from other
people.
Those under-aged child workers would be working hard labor in the
fields for a lot less compensation if Nike wasn't there making
basketball shoes.
Is there something wrong with a lifestyle that doesn't require one to
make lots of money to buy consumer products? Is there something wrong
with being a subsistance farmer, and making everything for yourself? I
don't think there need be a stigma on subsistance farming.
Who said anything about a stigma? If they're happier working hard labor
in the fields for no profit, more power to them. I think you should
leave that decision up to them and Nike though.
So children whose parents sell them to a factory shouldn't be
considered slaves, then, even if they're beaten for trying to escape
(this still happens in India and other asian countries, and a
13-year-old activist was assassinated by a corporate cabal that makes
Soccer balls, because he gained international attention for the issue
of child slave labor).
Political prisoners do not have any say when their government forces
them to make toys and sporting goods for American companies. Sure, I
suppose they can go on a hunger strike, but what good does that do you
in China, where they might decide to just kill you and harvest your
organs for the black market? And what about countries where workers
don't even have the right to protest crappy conditions or abuse.
People still die in factories that are fire-traps, and workers can be
beaten by their bosses -- and protest is often against the law, hence,
you strike, and you get thrown in jail... Then they make you work for
another company against your will...
Sure, there are some economies and countries where things are just
fine, but the reality for millions of 3rd world workers is grim.
and who give subsidies to dictators
in the countries where their factories are,
Those are usually called "bribes" or "kickbacks".
Yes, and they are undesireable.
I'll take your lack of a response to this as an agreement.
Of course they care about what their customers want. If you don't
want the products, don't buy them. It's really that simple.
Not true. Most consumers do not research anything about the companies
that make their products, much less the products available. Take the
Corvair, for example. Chevy put out a cool-looking car that people
looked at, and desired. They also happened to make it the single most
dangerous car on the road, and they were well aware of it's danger
when they put it on the market. As the lawsuit against Chevrolet
proved, Chevrolet tried to supress the information on how dangerous
the car was, and rather than fix the problem, they chose profit over
the safety of their customers. It's esimated that at least 300
peoplewere killed or injured because of that defect. Chevy really
cared about their customers, didn't it?
Yes, and a few trial lawyers got rich, and so did Ralph Nader, and now
Chevrolet pays attention to things like safety.
Well... not quite. Shortly after Nader's victory, and a few hundred
thousand dollars in fines, Chevy went on to create a vehicle that was
just as deadly -- the Bronco. The Bronco was the first SUV. It was a
converted Pickup truck with a larger, roomier interior intended for
more passengers. They took the chasis to an existing pickup, and
rather than redesign it to be more stable with the new top-heavy
design, they just left the chasis the way it was, and the vehicle
suffered from a high degree of rollover at low speeds (below 30 Mph).
Thousands of accidents occurred, and Chevy covered it all up, for
about 12 years. They eventually redigned the chasis, but only after
pressure from the government.
Essentially, the libertarian ideal of just letting companies police
themselves, and let the consumer decide the way the market flows is a
pipe-dream. A corporation will do anything -- violate any law, harm
any people, bribe politicians and law enforcement, avoid taxes -- if
it thinks it can get away with it. Most corporations don't care about
their customers. They only care about whether or not their spin and
propaganda advertising is effective. If they can advertise outright
lies, and get away with it without the fear of prosecution, they will
(and they have effectively lobbied our government to allow nearly any
lies to be told in advertising as "free speech", hence the rash of
ridiculous product claims like "reverses the aging process", "cures
AIDS", and "enlarges your penis".
Our worst nightmare is a society that is sold all sorts of drugs,
advertized falsely as helpful, but which are actually harmful. We are
at that point now, and it will get worse unless we crack down on false
advertising claims.
And what about the tobacco companies? History has proven that they
deliberately supressed all sorts of information on their products, and
even tried to say that smoking was healthy for you, when all
scientific tests showed otherwise. The smoking of tobacco products
causes thousands of deaths anually, which must show how much the
tobacco companies care...
American drug manufacturers must really care about their American
customers, because they charge them so much more than customers from
other countries. They must really care about the elderly and the sick,
because they actively try to ban the import of their drugs from
Canada.
The drug makes care about staying in business. Canada gets cheap prices
partially because Americans effectively subsidize the Canadian
goverments' ability to negotiate lower prices.
That's complete hogwash. American drug manufacturers negotiated better
deals with the Canadian government, while Americans, with few
effective collective bargaining outlets, got stiffed, therefore, it's
the taxpayers fault, and it counts as subsidizing Canada's health care
system. It is the fault of the manufacturers. They charge Americans
more BECAUSE THEY CAN. It's the same tactic that Japanese corporations
(who Make American corporations look benevolent by comparison) use. IN
Japan, they export electonics at pennies on the dollar, while charging
Japanese consumers higher prices (example, they sell us a DVD player
for $20, and the same player sells in Japan for around $200). It's
cheaper to re-import the exported products, and resell them to
Japanese consumers. Corporations in Japan wasted no time lobbying the
government to ban the re-importation of products, arguing that it was
protecting the consumers -- which is the same tactic the drug makers
are using -- The president even bought their bullcrap story,
repeeating the line about "We have to ban the import of drugs from
Canada, because we don't know if they come from Pakistan...".
But as Kerry pointed out, the drugs are not from Pakistan. They are
made in America, exported to Canada at a low price, then re-imported.
You're completely wrong on this issue. We don't "subsidize" Canada's
drugs. We're simply being taken advantage of by drug corporations,
plain and simple.
Recent developments in
that scenario suggest that the basic economics of supply and demand, if
allowed to operate, will quickly even out the prices across the border
so that Canadians will no longer have that price advantage.
But not if the drug corporations have their way. Are you even aware
that there is a massive lobbying campaign on behalf of the drug
companies to make it a crime to import drugs from Canada? They have
the president on their side on this issue, and he appears to have
bought their grief story hook, line, and sinker. See, America has a
long history of robber-barons, company-owned towns, and
private-armies. Ever hear of the Ludlow massacre? Rockafeller owned a
whole town back in 1913, and the citizens had no say whatsoever in how
the town was run. When they organized to fight for their rights (like
the right to have houses -- Rockafeller didn't allow people to own
land in his town, or build houses, so everyone had to live all year
round in tents -- houses were just for the company bigshots),
Rockafeller hired a private army of thugs to drive around town
shooting a truck-mounted gattling gun at strike leader's houses.
Because he was so rich and powerful, he never spent a day in jail for
it. Then we had a thug named Al Capone who effectively ran the whole
city of Chicago in the 1920s to the extent that federal law
enforcement couldn't do their work to arrest those responsible for the
violence.
This is the kind of America represented by US corporations, many of
whom are lobbying to gain back the kind of free-wheeling power and
control over the population once enjoyed by the thugs of the past.
Democracy is a threat to them, and they are doing everything they can
to get rid of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
20 Oct 2004 09:36:22 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410200550.534ad46@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958788B5D4DFAfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410190740.7a558435@posting.google.com:
AH, so if the consequences of slave, youth, prison, or otherwise
coerced, captive labor is big profits, then it's perfectly okay. If
workers are abused, work in poor conditions, or consumers are
deceived or harmed, who cares, as long as the profit is good. And
who cares if you break laws, as long as the profit is good...
I said "one of the consequences" not "the only consequence" or "the
only important consequence". If one of the other consequences is that
I go to jail, I might reconsider my huge profits.
**OR** what a lot of big corporations do, bribe the politicians so
that the law will ignore you, and if that doesn't work, use you
lawyers to obfuscate the justice system and pin the blame on some
underlings, or do what Walmart does -- the fines for constantly
violating US laws (like immigration laws, overtime laws, and other
employment laws) are much smaller than their annual profit, so they
keep violating the laws, because it's just another business expense to
them. Who cares that they force people to work overtime without paying
them for it, or that they hire illegal immigrants to clean up. They
sell really cheap, and that's what's important. CHEAP.
Oh, spare me, the vast majority of businesses run perfectly legitimate
operations. I'm tired of answering every one of your silly gross
generalizations.
<snip the whole load of complaints about old legends from labor history>
If the best you can do is to dredge up old ***** from the last
century, then shut the ***** up.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
20 Oct 2004 02:16:41 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95886BE5E3F7Dfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
I said "one of the consequences" not "the only consequence" or "the
only important consequence". If one of the other consequences is that
I go to jail, I might reconsider my huge profits.
**OR** what a lot of big corporations do, bribe the politicians so
that the law will ignore you, and if that doesn't work, use you
lawyers to obfuscate the justice system and pin the blame on some
underlings, or do what Walmart does -- the fines for constantly
violating US laws (like immigration laws, overtime laws, and other
employment laws) are much smaller than their annual profit, so they
keep violating the laws, because it's just another business expense to
them. Who cares that they force people to work overtime without paying
them for it, or that they hire illegal immigrants to clean up. They
sell really cheap, and that's what's important. CHEAP.
Oh, spare me, the vast majority of businesses run perfectly legitimate
operations.
I never argued that they don't. I'm talking about the larger, more
politically-connected corporations, particularly the multinationals --
the ones who consistantly are outed as violators of laws and
conscience.
I'm tired of answering every one of your silly gross
generalizations.
I was being pretty specific in my generalizations.
<snip the whole load of complaints about old legends from labor history>
The Ludlow Massacre was no legend. It is historic fact. Read a book,
you lazy bum.
If the best you can do is to dredge up old ***** from the last
century, then shut the ***** up.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! If the best you can do is tell me to shut up,
then I guess you don't have anything useful to add to the
conversation. Good bye!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
20 Oct 2004 02:22:06 PM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410201116.4839d212@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95886BE5E3F7Dfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
I said "one of the consequences" not "the only consequence" or
"the only important consequence". If one of the other consequences
is that I go to jail, I might reconsider my huge profits.
**OR** what a lot of big corporations do, bribe the politicians so
that the law will ignore you, and if that doesn't work, use you
lawyers to obfuscate the justice system and pin the blame on some
underlings, or do what Walmart does -- the fines for constantly
violating US laws (like immigration laws, overtime laws, and other
employment laws) are much smaller than their annual profit, so they
keep violating the laws, because it's just another business expense
to them. Who cares that they force people to work overtime without
paying them for it, or that they hire illegal immigrants to clean
up. They sell really cheap, and that's what's important. CHEAP.
Oh, spare me, the vast majority of businesses run perfectly
legitimate operations.
I never argued that they don't. I'm talking about the larger, more
politically-connected corporations, particularly the multinationals --
the ones who consistantly are outed as violators of laws and
conscience.
Most of your charges are bunk.
I'm tired of answering every one of your silly gross
generalizations.
I was being pretty specific in my generalizations.
<snip the whole load of complaints about old legends from labor
history>
The Ludlow Massacre was no legend. It is historic fact. Read a book,
you lazy bum.
If the best you can do is to dredge up old ***** from the last
century, then shut the ***** up.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! If the best you can do is tell me to shut up,
then I guess you don't have anything useful to add to the
conversation. Good bye!
I've already done better, but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
21 Oct 2004 07:31:10 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95889C55AAD70fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Most of your charges are bunk.
Ok. According to which sources? Prove it, don't drool it.
The Ludlow Massacre was no legend. It is historic fact. Read a book,
you lazy bum.
If the best you can do is to dredge up old ***** from the last
century, then shut the ***** up.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! If the best you can do is tell me to shut up,
then I guess you don't have anything useful to add to the
conversation. Good bye!
I've already done better,
That's not apparent. All you have done is play devil's advocate, and
your arguments pretty much boiled down to "profit is more important
than people." Though you fell short of actually stating the exact
phrase, it was readily apparent from your mode of answering.
but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
You never really answered anything. You merely provided hypothetical
excuses for corporate abuse. You essentially acted as an apologist for
large, heartless, conscience-less corporations who value profit over
people. You outed yourself as an advocate of anti-social corporate
policies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
21 Oct 2004 11:41:24 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410210431.a2d8f3d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95889C55AAD70fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Most of your charges are bunk.
Ok. According to which sources? Prove it, don't drool it.
The Ludlow Massacre was no legend. It is historic fact. Read a
book, you lazy bum.
If the best you can do is to dredge up old ***** from the last
century, then shut the ***** up.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! If the best you can do is tell me to shut
up, then I guess you don't have anything useful to add to the
conversation. Good bye!
I've already done better,
That's not apparent. All you have done is play devil's advocate, and
your arguments pretty much boiled down to "profit is more important
than people." Though you fell short of actually stating the exact
phrase, it was readily apparent from your mode of answering.
That's just your own bias showing that you didn't actually pay any
attention to what I wrote.
but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
You never really answered anything. You merely provided hypothetical
excuses for corporate abuse. You essentially acted as an apologist for
large, heartless, conscience-less corporations who value profit over
people. You outed yourself as an advocate of anti-social corporate
policies.
No, I "outed" myself as an advocate of personal responsibility, not
"social" responsibility. But you have your head too far up your own
socialist ***** to be able to tell the difference.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
22 Oct 2004 07:13:26 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns958981179E5BEfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410210431.a2d8f3d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95889C55AAD70fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
I've already done better,
That's not apparent. All you have done is play devil's advocate, and
your arguments pretty much boiled down to "profit is more important
than people." Though you fell short of actually stating the exact
phrase, it was readily apparent from your mode of answering.
That's just your own bias showing that you didn't actually pay any
attention to what I wrote.
It's okay, I knew you were a troll from the beginning.
but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
You never really answered anything. You merely provided hypothetical
excuses for corporate abuse. You essentially acted as an apologist for
large, heartless, conscience-less corporations who value profit over
people. You outed yourself as an advocate of anti-social corporate
policies.
No, I "outed" myself as an advocate of personal responsibility, not
"social" responsibility. But you have your head too far up your own
socialist ***** to be able to tell the difference.
So, is "personal responsibility" just doing whatever the hell you
want, and damn anyone who gets in your way? At least that's how
corporations tend to behave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
22 Oct 2004 09:18:53 AM |
|
|
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410220413.a08bfb3@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958981179E5BEfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
(Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410210431.a2d8f3d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95889C55AAD70fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
I've already done better,
That's not apparent. All you have done is play devil's advocate,
and your arguments pretty much boiled down to "profit is more
important than people." Though you fell short of actually stating
the exact phrase, it was readily apparent from your mode of
answering.
That's just your own bias showing that you didn't actually pay any
attention to what I wrote.
It's okay, I knew you were a troll from the beginning.
but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
You never really answered anything. You merely provided
hypothetical excuses for corporate abuse. You essentially acted as
an apologist for large, heartless, conscience-less corporations who
value profit over people. You outed yourself as an advocate of
anti-social corporate policies.
No, I "outed" myself as an advocate of personal responsibility, not
"social" responsibility. But you have your head too far up your own
socialist ***** to be able to tell the difference.
So, is "personal responsibility" just doing whatever the hell you
want, and damn anyone who gets in your way? At least that's how
corporations tend to behave.
More anti-corporate propaganda. How tiresome. Yawn.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psycho Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
25 Oct 2004 07:36:41 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns958A68EDADE2Dfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410220413.a08bfb3@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958981179E5BEfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Irish@fmedr.com (Psycho Dave) wrote in
news:ea202634.0410210431.a2d8f3d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95889C55AAD70fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
I've already done better,
That's not apparent. All you have done is play devil's advocate,
and your arguments pretty much boiled down to "profit is more
important than people." Though you fell short of actually stating
the exact phrase, it was readily apparent from your mode of
answering.
That's just your own bias showing that you didn't actually pay any
attention to what I wrote.
It's okay, I knew you were a troll from the beginning.
but you just dredged up more old crap like the
crap I already answered.
You never really answered anything. You merely provided
hypothetical excuses for corporate abuse. You essentially acted as
an apologist for large, heartless, conscience-less corporations who
value profit over people. You outed yourself as an advocate of
anti-social corporate policies.
No, I "outed" myself as an advocate of personal responsibility, not
"social" responsibility. But you have your head too far up your own
socialist ***** to be able to tell the difference.
So, is "personal responsibility" just doing whatever the hell you
want, and damn anyone who gets in your way? At least that's how
corporations tend to behave.
More anti-corporate propaganda. How tiresome. Yawn.
Rather than deal with the facts I raise and try to prove that they are
untrue or lack any foundation in fact, you take the simple-minded
approach and simply dismiss it outright as propaganda. How George W.
of you. So in denial, and so sure of yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What does "America" mean to you now? |
06 Oct 2004 12:19:00 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2004 16:26:49 -0700, (Psycho Dave) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957969022CAA1fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Iceland...
If we had an economy that was as small as any of those states, perhaps.
< | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
