Yes I do. It's my considered opinion after reading many of his posts, that his advice isn't usually sound. He presents some interesting ideas occasionally, but when he strays into the realm of "advice", it usually falls flat.

At any rate, my recommendation to dharma not to fllow Napster's advice was mostly because I don't think much of Napster's confrontational, and trollish, posting style. He a self-described 'instigator' and we don't need any more of those around here IMO.
instigators? here? where?:comphit:

Yeeeeessss, let your hatred consume you! Give in to the dark side! Hate leads to power! Join me, and we shall rule AllForums with an iron fist!

combine that with the picture in my sig.. and that would be pretty convicing.. although you'd have to take out the "optimism" line, because it's just not fitting.

Actually I was thinking more the emperor when I wrote that.

Actually I was thinking more the emperor when I wrote that.
Those lines are taken from Vader's mouth and the Emperor's.

"Join me, and we shall rule the galaxy as father and son."

Yet you went and did a post on corporations that would strip them of the methods by which they can operate in society (the stripping of "human" rights of a corporation, its ability to own property, enter contracts, limited liability and so forth)

That is by far the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

First of all, businesses do not need to be a corporation in order to operate in society. A corporation is merely a legal construct which allows for the limiting of liability and responsibility.

Businesses existed just fine for centuries without having the rights of citizens. They flourish in most of the rest of the world right now without those same rights.

Money does NOT equal free speech and corporations are NOT human.

In order to operate in society corporations do NOT need a right to keep secrets, or a right to coverup their illegal financial dealings or a right to unduely influence our legislature which they cannot vote for, because corporations are NOT citizens.

Many corporations aren't even American!

Tell me this Darth, why should a foreign corporation be allowed the same rights as American citizens? We don't allow private foreign business owners to have those rights.


There's a difference between anti-TRUST and anti-CORPORATE the latter isn't championed by republicans, dammit.

You are either dishonest or feeble-minded for attempting to conflate the argument into "anti-corporate".

Which is it?

I have no problem with corporations existing, but they should NOT have the rights of citizens.

It doesn't work that way, vile. The bigger Wal Mart gets or Target or KMart or whatever the more there is for people who specialize in niche products. Wal Mart is very, very good at selling general merchandise but they're poor at selling specialty products or prime stuff. You can buy a steak at Wal Mart, but to buy the prime stuff requires a specialty shop. You can buy shoes at Wal Mart, but premium brand shoes such as Timberland are found elsewhere. I don't even bother buying CLOTHES there at all. That's a toss up between BJs, EMS and Cabelas.

That all may be true Darth but there are many Americans who never buy the "prime stuff" because they can't afford it. Should they only have one option of where to shop?

That all may be true Darth but there are many Americans who never buy the "prime stuff" because they can't afford it. Should they only have one option of where to shop?

Uhm, Vile, Wal Mart's specialty is catering to those without a lot of money. Ever been to a large Wal-mart? They've got stuff there cheap. The biggest beef with Wal-Mart isn't with poor customers, they like Wal-Mart. It's that they're not unionized and do not pay union wages. Now that Wal Mart has cut into the groceries business, they're stepping on the toes of unionized grocery stores that pay union wages, and charge higher prices because of the wages those stores have to pay. This is one the big reason Wal-Mart is patently unwelcome in the bigger cities like New York and a big reason for all the anti Wal-Mart sentiment. Wal-Mart doesn't pay a lot.

That really wasn't my point, I was illustrating how a person can be in business with a big box retailer like Wal-Mart. You can't open a general store and compete with Wal-Mart, you do have to specialize find a niche market and do business in that way. This is why I'm not worried about stores like Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy opening up, people can either specialize or sell service/support. IF they're in the right location with the right merchandise. Big Box is great at general items, but stuff that takes skill and knowledge will always be in the domain of a specialty store, dammit.

That is by far the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

Well it would be if the person hearing my arguments had zero clue how the corporate world works, dammit.

A corporation is merely a legal construct which allows for the limiting of liability and responsibility.

The limiting of liability means that a person can invest in a corporation without risking their personal property. It limits risk. In short one can invest in or start a corporation and if it goes broke, they're not at risk of losing their house, dammit. Of course I've said this about 5 times now, what part aren't you getting?

And if you think for a second that corporations ahve zero responsibility watch a corporation screw up and you'll see their stock prices plummet, their investors running like scalded dogs and their assets seized by yet another corporation who knows how to do business right. Corporations are very, very responsible to their investors, stockholders and most importantly and I do MEAN most importantly their customers, dammit.

Businesses existed just fine for centuries without having the rights of citizens. They flourish in most of the rest of the world right now without those same rights.

Well, business people did make a living, but were also regarded as the scum of the earth, they had the lowest rank in society. That was true in Europe, China was big on that, India was also a fervent believer in the idea of business as scum. Making a living by buying and selling was seen as low class. An honorable living, as seen by ancient societies was either in the priesthood or the military. Of course, England changed its mind several centuries ago, decided that making a living by trade was an honorable way of doing things, allowed trade to thrive and became a world power in short order. America had pretty much the same story. It's no accident that most of the modern inventions we take for granted were brought about in the last two hundred years or so. Of course, one would have to spend time attending college with a prof who knew what he was talking about and read some Larry Elder and Dinesh D'Souza to grasp that, so I'm not going to hold my breath that you're ever going to, dammit.

Money does NOT equal free speech and corporations are NOT human.

So corporations are to just shut up, pay their taxes and let the anti-corporate types dictate the laws they have to live under? If you want to truly reform politics, require transperancy, and I mean COMPLETE transparency when it comes to who is giving how much money to which candidate, dammit.

In order to operate in society corporations do NOT need a right to keep secrets,

So, a person who invents a better way of doing things can't seek a patent and get rewarded for their hard work? A corporation that invests time, money and talent inventing a new drug or a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon is not to be rewarded? Take away the reward and you WILL kill innovation, dammit.

or a right to coverup their illegal financial dealings

So, you've perused corporate contracts and it explicity allows for the covering up of shady deals? And you tell me I come up with dumb arguments!

Tell me this Darth, why should a foreign corporation be allowed the same rights as American citizens?

Their not given the same rights as American citizens, but they're given corporate rights, the right to private property, patents, entering legal contracts, limited liability and other such rights. Look to your nearest banana republic and see what happens when such rights are taken away, dammit.

I have no problem with corporations existing, but they should NOT have the rights of citizens.

Actually, you do have major problems with corporations. You wish to unravel the very fabric that has allowed American industry to flourish here, dammit.

So corporations are to just shut up, pay their taxes and let the anti-corporate types dictate the laws they have to live under? If you want to truly reform politics, require transperancy, and I mean COMPLETE transparency when it comes to who is giving how much money to which candidate, dammit.
why should they? corporations are the sum total of their shareholders, who have as much of a right to redress of grievances as other citizens.

Uhm, Vile, Wal Mart's specialty is catering to those without a lot of money. Ever been to a large Wal-mart? They've got stuff there cheap. The biggest beef with Wal-Mart isn't with poor customers, they like Wal-Mart. It's that they're not unionized and do not pay union wages. Now that Wal Mart has cut into the groceries business, they're stepping on the toes of unionized grocery stores that pay union wages, and charge higher prices because of the wages those stores have to pay. This is one the big reason Wal-Mart is patently unwelcome in the bigger cities like New York and a big reason for all the anti Wal-Mart sentiment. Wal-Mart doesn't pay a lot.

That really wasn't my point, I was illustrating how a person can be in business with a big box retailer like Wal-Mart. You can't open a general store and compete with Wal-Mart, you do have to specialize find a niche market and do business in that way. This is why I'm not worried about stores like Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy opening up, people can either specialize or sell service/support. IF they're in the right location with the right merchandise. Big Box is great at general items, but stuff that takes skill and knowledge will always be in the domain of a specialty store, dammit.


You didn't address my point at all. I don't care if Wal-Mart wants to sell cheap merchandise to low-income people. I care that they want to be the only one doing so. Your point seems to be..."oh well, the other guys can sell other stuff to other people".

corporations are NOT human.

thus, they can be killed

Darth, you are way too transparent. It bespeaks your ignorance.

Here is your theme:

To purposely twist anything I say into being "Anti-Corporate" and suggesting that I want to destroy businesses and corporations.

This is, of course, a lie on your part.

Uhm, Vile, Wal Mart's specialty is catering to those without a lot of money.

Which means that in communities without a lot of money, across the country, they have shut down small businesses (formerly recognized as the backbone of our economy) and exported the wealth of our nation out to Red China.



Ever been to a large Wal-mart? They've got stuff there cheap.

Well spotted Sherlock.


The biggest beef with Wal-Mart isn't with poor customers, they like Wal-Mart. It's that they're not unionized and do not pay union wages.

Nobody has any beef with the poor customers. They don't have any choice in the matter. They can only buy what they can afford.

Your problem is that you have no clue what critics of Wal-Mart are really saying because you are too busy spreading lies like these.

Pay attention Darth:

The biggest beef with Wal-Mart is the effect they have on economies and small businesses in communities across the nation.

The beef with Wal-Mart is what they represent, which is a corporate culture of corruption and greed that has no regard whatsoever for the repercussions of its actions and does everything it can to avoid all responsibility to everyone except their shareholders.




Now that Wal Mart has cut into the groceries business, they're stepping on the toes of unionized grocery stores that pay union wages, and charge higher prices because of the wages those stores have to pay.

And those union employees, who get the higher wages, are able to pay their bills and they posess liquid capital that they spend in the local economy, invigorating and expanding that economy, generating more opprotunity for other businesses in the community.

Lower wages only mean less money in the local marketplace. The effect of breaking unions is that money is sucked from the local economy and put into the pockets of wealthy foreign investors.


That really wasn't my point, I was illustrating how a person can be in business with a big box retailer like Wal-Mart. You can't open a general store and compete with Wal-Mart, you do have to specialize find a niche market and do business in that way.

You are missing the entire point. not even so-called "specialty" stores can survive in a community with "Big Box" stores because they cause a drain of money from the economy so there are no longer enough people who can afford "specialty" products to a sustain an entire business on a niche market.


This is why I'm not worried about stores like Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy opening up, people can either specialize or sell service/support. IF they're in the right location with the right merchandise. Big Box is great at general items, but stuff that takes skill and knowledge will always be in the domain of a specialty store, dammit.

So according to you the so-called "specialty store" market is supposed to compensate for the loss of all the "general" small businesses in a community.

That proves it. You are a fucking retard.

The unspoken message here is that you are telling the vast majority of your fellow Americans that if they won't work as cheaply as chinese peasants, then they should just shut up and die so they can make room for the few rich and their very few "speciality stores".

"Die and decrease the surplus population"... that was a common theme in your beloved victorian England and it's lazze faire capitalist economy, as Dickens so often pointed out in his works.


The limiting of liability means that a person can invest in a corporation without risking their personal property. It limits risk. In short one can invest in or start a corporation and if it goes broke, they're not at risk of losing their house, dammit. Of course I've said this about 5 times now, what part aren't you getting?

*sigh*

It makes my head hurt to read posts as patheticly ignorant as yours.

Corporations were originally created as a protection for public works (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html) that provided critical services to communities. Originally the only corporations were water companies, fire departments, electric companies, etc. The whole reason those businesses were deemed worthy of limited liability was the fact that they provide critical services. Period. "Dammit."

Businesses that do not provide critical services should not be afforded the limited liability of a corporation. All that does is protect those who can afford to lose. It punishes the suppliers and vendors just because incometent corporate officers could not run a successful business.

The vast majority of corporate stock holders hold common stock and are thus NOT protected from any risk if the business fails. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people who lost everything from Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. The majority of executives of those companies (the ones you claim "risk" everything), they walked away with millions even though the businesses failed. The real risk was taken on by the employees, common investors and the communities.


And if you think for a second that corporations ahve zero responsibility watch a corporation screw up and you'll see their stock prices plummet, their investors running like scalded dogs and their assets seized by yet another corporation who knows how to do business right.

And as I already said, the executives in those corporations generally walk away scott-free and the community pays for their incompetence and corruption.



Corporations are very, very responsible to their investors, stockholders

This I agree with. All they care about is their majority stockholders.

and most importantly and I do MEAN most importantly their customers, dammit.

You are an idiot.

Was GM or Ford being responsible to their customers when they released the Pinto or GMC pickup knowing that it had a chance of exploding?

Was Phillip Morris being responsible to their customers when they purposely increased the addictiveness of it's products?



Well, business people did make a living, but were also regarded as the scum of the earth, they had the lowest rank in society.

No dipshit, that position was and still is held by the poverty stricken, the homeless, the slaves and the immigrants.

Business owners, even small businesses, have always had a higher place in society then those people. They are the middle class. It has been that way since ancient Greece and Rome.

Small businesses and the middle class have always had to struggle in capitalist societies, especially when forces such as the ones you support, those of the largest and wealthiest businesses are in collusion with the politcial establishment, as it was in victorian England and as it is now in America.



So corporations are to just shut up, pay their taxes and let the anti-corporate types dictate the laws they have to live under?

You are such a twit. Here is your transparent theme again, rearing it's ugly, untruthful head.

According to you everyone in a society is "anti-corporate" because they don't allow the corporation to dictate their laws to them.

The citizens make the laws through their legislature, the corporations have to live by those rules that the people decide. I am suprised that someone as supposedly educated as you claim to be didn't know such a simple thing.



If you want to truly reform politics, require transperancy, and I mean COMPLETE transparency when it comes to who is giving how much money to which candidate, dammit.

Here you are in 100% agreement with me.

Somebody call Ripley...

I am all for corporate and politcial transparency. That is precisely what I have been talking about. You have been arguing against it.

But who is going to enfore this transparency except for the "evil" government that you seem to hate so much.

Unfortunately corporations consider "transparency" a violation of their "right to privacy". A right you have been claiming they need "in order to operate in society".


I said:
In order to operate in society corporations do NOT need a right to keep secrets
You responded: (one paragraph after calling for "transparency")

So, a person who invents a better way of doing things can't seek a patent and get rewarded for their hard work? A corporation that invests time, money and talent inventing a new drug or a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon is not to be rewarded? Take away the reward and you WILL kill innovation, dammit.

Nobody is calling for an end to all intellectual property but that is not the same as backroom dealings and the like. (which you just echoed my sentiment against by calling for transparency)


I said:
or a right to coverup their illegal financial dealings
To which you brainlessly replied:
So, you've perused corporate contracts and it explicity allows for the covering up of shady deals? And you tell me I come up with dumb arguments!

Congrats on another incredibly stupid argument. Apparently you were too busy getting your obviously unused education to bother paying any attention to the scandals surrounding Enron and Worldcom. (which, by the way, involved illegal financial dealings that they initially tried to cover up, Darth Denial)



Their not given the same rights as American citizens,

For someone who claims to be so much smarter than me, you say some really stupid things.

Here are some examples of how truly wrong you are:
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Beckwith (1889) - Supreme Court rules a corporation is a “person” for both due process and equal protection.

Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co. (1893) - For the first time corporations have claim to the Bill of Rights.

Lochner v. New York (1905) - “Lochner” became shorthand for using the Constitution to invalidate government regulation of the corporation. It embodies the doctrine of “substantive due process.” From 1905 until the mid 1930s the Court invalidated approximately 200 economic regulations, usually under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .

Hale v. Henkel (1906) - Corporations get 4th Amendment “search and seizure” protection. Justice Harlan disagreed on this point: “. . . the power of the government, by its representatives, to look into the books, records and papers of a corporation of its own creation, to ascertain whether that corporation has obeyed or is defying the law, will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed.”

Of course anybody who has spent any time in economics, law, history and ethics classes would already know this.



Actually, you do have major problems with corporations. You wish to unravel the very fabric that has allowed American industry to flourish here, dammit.

Another baldface lie. Your transparent theme of claiming I am "anti-corporate" is clearly a load of bullshit lies.

I am, if anything, pro-worker, pro-society, pro-community, pro-responsible business practices and pro-government regulation.

The fact you constantly have to twist what I say is evidence of the inherent dishonesty of your arguments.

thus, they can be killed

And here we have an even less intelligent poster running with the same dishonest theme.

First, VILE, off you're absolutely right that I didn't get the point of your first post at all. Let me correct that. Wal-Mart isn't going to be the sole supplier of goods to people, they're not. Target is hot on their heels, Home Depot directly competes as far as selling tools and other such supplies, Food Lion sells quality groceries at rock bottom prices. There's BJs that sells goods in bulk, we have an Ocean State Job Lot that seems to get hold of every single close out merchandise that's out there. What Wal-Mart wants and what it gets are going to be two totally different things. To try and artificially stifle Wal Mart will just hurt innovation. Sam Walton had a good idea and made an industry out of it, someone else will come up with an even better idea, if you let things run its course. Wal-Mart handily defeated other department stores like Zaire's, Caldor and Ames, THOSE stores supplanted Woolworths and Sears and THOSE stores killed the mom and pop places, at least they did around here and as far as a general store is concerned. Hence is the reason why I pointed out niche markets, I know several, I know the guys who run them and they're doing quite well, thank you very much, dammit.

Your point seems to be..."oh well, the other guys can sell other stuff to other people".
And what's wrong with that? I KNOW some people who do run specialty stores and are doing very well at it. One guy, Charlie, specializes in high quality fly fishing gear and does very well, another, Joe is mostly into saltwater fishing gear and he also charters fishing to Montauk Point to fish for various species, there are two guys who specialize in hobbies, one is more into RC aircraft the other in NASCAR memorabelia, baseball cards and stuff like that another couple sells exoctic fresh and saltwater fish, birds and reptiles. ALL are doing quite well in their little niches. That's why I brought up that particular point, dammit.

Dharmabum's stuff......

To purposely twist anything I say into being "Anti-Corporate" and suggesting that I want to destroy businesses and corporations.
You are anti-corporate, you just won't see it, dammit.

Which means that in communities without a lot of money, across the country, they have shut down small businesses (formerly recognized as the backbone of our economy) and exported the wealth of our nation out to Red China.
They said as much about Japan in the early 80s. What you're saying has been re-hashed a hundred times in our history.


And those union employees, who get the higher wages, are able to pay their bills and they posess liquid capital that they spend in the local economy, invigorating and expanding that economy, generating more opprotunity for other businesses in the community.

Lower wages only mean less money in the local marketplace. The effect of breaking unions is that money is sucked from the local economy and put into the pockets of wealthy foreign investors.
Maybe, and it's rough on the grocery store unions, but they're making $15 or $18 an hour doing $8 an hour work. I can also point out that those groceries stores much charge much higher prices to compensate for the price of labor, which hits the poor first and hardest, dammit.

Well spotted Sherlock.
Actually, I was surprised YOU picked up on that one, dammit.

The beef with Wal-Mart is what they represent, which is a corporate culture of corruption and greed that has no regard whatsoever for the repercussions of its actions and does everything it can to avoid all responsibility to everyone except their shareholders.
When Henry Ford perfected mass production of the Model T and people whose livlihoods depended on the horse and carriage were put out of business, was he introducing innovation to America or out to hurt the horse and buggy business through greed and corruption without regard to repurcussions? When the General Store was first introduced in the 1800s and people who specialized in things like making shoes or clothes or nails were put out of business, were they responsible for innovation or were they out to hurt those businesses through greed and corruption without regard to repurcussions? The railroad put the stagecoach industry out of business in America, the highway system put the railroad industry out of the passenger train business. The airplane put the passenger ship out of business, at least in the sense that people didn't want to spend 5 days crossing the Atlantic when it took 6 hours by plane. Cruise lines are a different matter entirely. Edision's lightbulb killed the oil lamp and gas lamp businesses.

NOW, looking at the drastic changes that took place in America and put people out of work when something new and better came along, would you have tried to stop the railroad from replacing the stagecoach? Would you have insisted that Henry Ford not make cars affordable because it would've doomed the horse and carriage? Would you rather use electricit to light your home or the gas lantern and oil lamp? Would you have said that people who did introduce innovation were acting out of GREED and without regards to the repurcussions of their work?

It's the same thing with Wal-Mart. Sam Walton found a way to make a general store more profitable and it has changed things in America. But people will adapt to those changes, new work will be found and life will go on. As long as people don't go and try to kill new ways of doing things because it upsets the status quo, dammit.

You are missing the entire point. not even so-called "specialty" stores can survive in a community with "Big Box" stores because they cause a drain of money from the economy so there are no longer enough people who can afford "specialty" products to a sustain an entire business on a niche market.
I've not seen that happen. People who do work hard and get a skill, plumbing, electrician, welder, automechanic, accountant, dental hygenist are well able to afford both the big box store and the specialty niche markets that I've pointed out, dammit.

So according to you the so-called "specialty store" market is supposed to compensate for the loss of all the "general" small businesses in a community.
NO, I was just illustrating a single example of how a business person can cope with a big box store. In this case, a specialty store selling niche products.

That proves it. You are a fucking retard.
Can't you come up with better than THAT? Freethinker does better in his SLEEP, dammit.

The unspoken message here is that you are telling the vast majority of your fellow Americans that if they won't work as cheaply as chinese peasants, then they should just shut up and die so they can make room for the few rich and their very few "speciality stores".
OR, they can learn a skill that pays well. OR they can get a degree that will lead to a job that pays well. OR they can go into business for themselves that pays well. OR they can buy property and invest. The "fucking retard" here is the boy who thinks that the only way a person is going to have a chance in life is to stop the evil Wal-Mart.

*Quick side note for anybody OTHER than homeslice here who's reading this. I wish that people could've read Victor Bolenko's biography. He was the Soviet fighter pilot that flew a top secret jet to Japan in '76. He came from a country that truly had very little oppurtunity and he was flat out amazed at the wealth and economic OPPURTUNITY that exists here in the States. He came to the conclusion that ANYBODY from ANY background here in the U.S. can make a good living here. Unless they're lazy or stupid. He proved that for himself. He HAD to prove that to himself, that was what he was like. He worked for a while as a farm hand, made a living at it, and calculated what it would take for a penniless farmhand to become a pilot for an airliner. He did the same thing as an auto mechanic. That man applied himself and picked up skills that would've landed him a gracious living here in the U.S. and he wasn't afraid of work. Too much to list what Bolenko accomplished and his remarkable life.


It makes my head hurt to read posts as patheticly ignorant as yours.
Take an asprin and get over it, dammit.

The whole reason those businesses were deemed worthy of limited liability was the fact that they provide critical services. Period. "Dammit."
In the first place, do NOT point me to left wing websites for "education" on corporations, I don't need them, dammit.

Secondly, a corporation ALLOWS for someone of limited means to go into business for themselves and limit personal risk. It's good for business and innovation, which is why I defend it so vehemently, dammit.

Businesses that do not provide critical services should not be afforded the limited liability of a corporation.
Really? The computer your using was made by a corporation, computers are a vital component of the internet and that IS critical to the U.S. If you travel the place you sleep at was probably provided by a corporation. The food you eat was gotten there by a trucking company that is incorporated. The television you watch, the car you drive, the coke you drink. The music you listen to was provided by a corporation. The man who comes to your house and fixes your roof or digs your pool or repairs your plumbing probably had himself incorporated to limit his personal risk. I'd say that some of those "non-vital" services are pretty damned vital, dammit.


Shoot, it's past midnight and I've got to go to bed, I'll have to pick this up tomorrow, dammit.

Very nice post Darth. I agree with everything. Outdated ways of doing things will always continue to be replaced with new innovation. Also I agree that FT puts up a much better fight than dharma. And at least he doesn't whine about being ganged up on while he's calling people fucking retards. :)

Very nice post Darth. I agree with everything. Outdated ways of doing things will always continue to be replaced with new innovation. Also I agree that FT puts up a much better fight than dharma.

You are such a fucking hypocrite.

You are such a fucking hypocrite.
Again... pot... kettle... black?

You and I both complain about the lack of civility from some people, but you are the only one who calls people "fucking retards" simply because you disagree with them. I disagree with just about everything you say, but I still respect you as a person and think you make good points. My only problem with you is that you are rude, and that you claim not to be. FT is rude too sometimes, but he does not ask other people to be nice to him. For that, I respect him (and also because he's very intelligent). Treat others as you would have them treat you.

You are anti-corporate, you just won't see it, dammit.

And you are Anti-American Boy, you just don't see it.


They said as much about Japan in the early 80s. What you're saying has been re-hashed a hundred times in our history.

And it proved true with Japan, you dimwitted troll.
Toyota is now the #2 auto manufacturer in the world. Fortunately for Japan, they unionized their labor decades ago and they don't have the insane Anti-Labor dogma that we do here in America. As a result, Japan has a very strong middle class, unlike America.



Maybe, and it's rough on the grocery store unions, but they're making $15 or $18 an hour doing $8 an hour work. I can also point out that those groceries stores much charge much higher prices to compensate for the price of labor, which hits the poor first and hardest, dammit.

Firstly, if the market dictates that people need to make $18 an hour to live in a certain area, then that is what they should be paying. Meijers is a unionized grocery store and they have some of the lowest prices around.



Actually, I was surprised YOU picked up on that one, dammit.

You have such an impressive grasp of the obvious Darth Dimwit, especially after I point it out to you.


When Henry Ford perfected mass production of the Model T and people whose livlihoods depended on the horse and carriage were put out of business, was he introducing innovation to America or out to hurt the horse and buggy business through greed and corruption without regard to repurcussions?

And what is Wal-Mart doing that is so revolutionary? What is their "innovation"??? Buying cheap crap from Red China?!? Paying their employees substandard wages?!? Forcing their employees to use Medicare instead of offering health insurance?!?

If that is your idea of "innovation" then you are an idiot. An Anti-American idiot.


When the General Store was first introduced in the 1800s and people who specialized in things like making shoes or clothes or nails were put out of business, were they responsible for innovation or were they out to hurt those businesses through greed and corruption without regard to repurcussions?

Once again you prove you have no clue what you are talking about.

General Stores did none of those things, you retard. General stores bought goods from the makers of shoes, clothes and nails. All LOCAL suppliers and that invigorated the local economy.


The railroad put the stagecoach industry out of business in America, the highway system put the railroad industry out of the passenger train business. The airplane put the passenger ship out of business, at least in the sense that people didn't want to spend 5 days crossing the Atlantic when it took 6 hours by plane. Cruise lines are a different matter entirely. Edision's lightbulb killed the oil lamp and gas lamp businesses.

Again, you are giving examples that have nothing whatsoever to do with Wal-Mart's practices or why they are criticized. You are proving that you are Anti-American with every word.


It's the same thing with Wal-Mart. Sam Walton found a way to make a general store more profitable

By buying cheap crap from Red China, cutting out the local suppliers and damaging the local economies. You call that "innovation"?!?
You call underpaying the employees and denying them standard benefits like Health Insurance "innovation"!?!?

Sam Walton would not have approved of any of that. It is his Children, the idle-rich, who have fucked up what Sam Walton created.

Walton stated, "Each Wal-Mart store should reflect the values of its customers and support the vision they hold for their community." Wal-Mart has outreach programs led by local associates who grew up in the area and understand its needs. Wal-Mart tries to become involved in local communities by allowing local charities to hold bake sales on store property, and by offering scholarships to graduating seniors from local high schools.

When Sam Walton was alive and running the company, all the employees had profit sharing.
No so today!

and it has changed things in America.

Yes, for the worse.


I said:
You are missing the entire point. not even so-called "specialty" stores can survive in a community with "Big Box" stores because they cause a drain of money from the economy so there are no longer enough people who can afford "specialty" products to a sustain an entire business on a niche market.

I've not seen that happen.

Then you aren't paying attention.


I was just illustrating a single example of how a business person can cope with a big box store. In this case, a specialty store selling niche products.

Which ONLY works until such time as the Big Box store sees that success and gets into that Niche market. Baseball and trading cards for example. I have a friend who ran a very successful trading card store in mid-michigan until Wa-Mart got into selling trading cards, and started undercutting his business. They purposely started lowering their prices below his. He would lower his to match theirs and they would go even lower until he could no longer survive and had to close down.

He eventually had to move out of state to find work.


OR, they can learn a skill that pays well. OR they can get a degree that will lead to a job that pays well.

Yes, thats it! Everyone in America can become a doctor or a lawyer!

You are such a fucking retard.


OR they can go into business for themselves that pays well.

Yes, like owning a Big Box Store selling cheap shit from Red China, since that is the only way to survive nowadays.


OR they can buy property and invest.

With WHAT?!? Do you think everyone who is unemployeed is going to have enough liquid capital laying around to buy an investment property?!?

The "fucking retard" here is the boy who thinks that Wal-Mart is helping the economy, refuses to see the plain consequences right under his nose and claims that everyone will somehow magically find new jobs that pay as well and they will be able to buy investment properties.


In the first place, do NOT point me to left wing websites for "education" on corporations, I don't need them, dammit.

Wrong.

Clearly you DO need an education...desperately.

Your ignorance is astounding.


Secondly, a corporation ALLOWS for someone of limited means to go into business for themselves and limit personal risk.

No, it doesn't. If you have limited means you aren't going to get the business loan you will need to get started in the first place. Being a corporation won't get you the capital you need and if your business fails after you invest everything you have (because you have limited means) you will still lose it anyway. Dammit.

The only people who really benefit from that protection are those who can afford to lose the money. Those who get the "preferred stock" and have the golden parachute.


The computer your using was made by a corporation, computers are a vital component of the internet and that IS critical to the U.S.

Critcial means that we cannot survive without them. Critcial means things like Water, heat (gas and electrcicity), fire protection services, police services (before they were socialized).

Those were the things that corporations were originally created for. Those were the things that were deemed important enough to warrent limiting their liability.

Believe it or not, Boy, you can survive without your computer.
You can get along fine without your porn and video games.

The man who comes to your house and fixes your roof or digs your pool or repairs your plumbing probably had himself incorporated to limit his personal risk.

No, he doesn't. That is what his insurance is for.


I'd say that some of those "non-vital" services are pretty damned vital, dammit.

Like your examples, television, coke and music? Oh yes, Boy, those arevery vital. </sarcasm>

Tell me Darth Boy, when did you first realize you are Anti-American?

I disagree with just about everything you say,

And you agree with everything Darth Idiot the Uber-Conservative says... but you aren't a conservative...

You are a hypocite. You have no problem labeling me, but you get all huffy and insulted if someone does the same thing to you.

Face it, you ARE a Conservative. You have said as much. You called me a "liberal" and said you disagree with everything I say.

You are no moderate.

Face it, you ARE a Conservative.
Oy Vey!

And you agree with everything Darth Idiot the Uber-Conservative says... but you aren't a conservative...

You are a hypocite. You have no problem labeling me, but you get all huffy and insulted if someone does the same thing to you.

Face it, you ARE a Conservative. You have said as much. You called me a "liberal" and said you disagree with everything I say.

You are no moderate.
When did she say she disagrees with everything you say? Moreover, how would someone who supports gay rights, welfare, etc. be termed a conservative? I agree with her more times than I disagree, and I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian by name, possibly trending more towards liberal than libertarian recently. And I have no idea why you're so obsessed with labels anyway; can't people believe what they want to believe without being thrown in some vaguely defined group of somewhat-but-not-really like-minded individuals?

Moreover, how would someone who supports gay rights, welfare, etc. be termed a conservative?
OUCH, Borg!

That's not entirely true. Modern conservatives should absolutely support gay rights. Welfare, OTOH....well, they can just fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned..:D

OUCH, Borg!

That's not entirely true. Modern conservatives should absolutely support gay rights.
That's not entirely true, though. Like it or not, the term "conservative" presently is inextricably associated with "Christian Right". "Republican" even more so. The term's been hijacked, man.

I thought dharmabum was a strong advocate of civil discourse?

I guess that's only reserved for people that agree with him.

I thought dharmabum was a strong advocate of civil discourse?

I guess that's only reserved for people that agree with him.

I think dharmabum is an advocate of self intercourse

I thought dharmabum was a strong advocate of civil discourse?


I was until those pleas went absolutely nowhere and the supposed "moderates" on here were defending the ones doing the attacking.

I was told that nobody will respect me unless I join in the attacks.... so there you go.

When did she say she disagrees with everything you say?

In post #116.


Moreover, how would someone who supports gay rights, welfare, etc. be termed a conservative?

Two words... Rudy Guliani.


I'm a libertarian by name, possibly trending more towards liberal than libertarian recently.

As Thom Hartmann says, Libertarians are Conservatives who want to smoke pot and get laid.

In post #116.
I love your straw man. She said "just about everything", and even then it's obvious hyperbole.
Two words... Rudy Guliani.
Rudy Giuliani is pretty damn moderate, wouldn't you say?
As Thom Hartmann says, Libertarians are Conservatives who want to smoke pot and get laid.
As with any label, this doesn't work at all. I've always leaned more liberal than conservative, and I still do. I disagree with conservatives 80% of the time, at least. I have little desire to "smoke pot and get laid"; I've never smoked pot in my life, and my sexual endeavors have been limited to those within a stable and committed relationship. I would suggest you stop looking at labels as some convenient way to pigeonhole people and assume they believe X, Y, and Z, and look at them as what they really are: A highly imperfect shorthand that people use out of laziness and that really means very, very little.

I am NOT a conservative. I don't know how you believe this... I do not agree with everything Darth ever says. I agreed with that whole post, but I mostly don't agree with his views as far as social subjects. I lean towards conservative on some economic topics and on gun control, but I can't think of any other subjects on which I have a conservative slant.

I love your straw man. She said "just about everything", and even then it's obvious hyperbole.

Strawman!?!
You are either full of shit or a complete idiot.


Rudy Giuliani is pretty damn moderate, wouldn't you say?

Sure, a "moderate" conservative.



As with any label, this doesn't work at all.

Well, then why label anything? :rolleyes:

I am NOT a conservative.

You are as much a "conservative" as I am a "liberal", even if you won't admit it.

You don't like being labeled? Then I suggest you quit your habit of labeling other people.

You are as much a "conservative" as I am a "liberal", even if you won't admit it.

You don't like being labeled? Then I suggest you quit your habit of labeling other people.

I don't mind being labeled at all. You can call me a conservative if you want. I was just trying to explain to you that that's not true. OK so since you want to call me a conservative, I'll call you a conservative too. I know you are not (just as I think you know I'm not), but that's not going to stop me! Because you're labeling me, I'm going to prove my point by being intentionally obtuse and calling you a conservative. Sounds good, right? :D

Strawman!?!
You are either full of shit or a complete idiot.
Interesting language for someone who bemoans the lack of civility in discourse constantly.

OK so since you want to call me a conservative, I'll call you a conservative too.

:rolleyes:
You are missing the point completely.
First I am a liberal now you are labeling me a conservative. You don't seem able to make up your mind.

Interesting language for someone who bemoans the lack of civility in discourse constantly.

I used to. I made a sincere effort to be civil when I started here but increasingly nasty personal attacks that the so-called "moderates" were defending and a death threat later, I realized that nobody on here has any respect for or interest in civil discourse.

Now I give what I get.

:rolleyes:
You are missing the point completely.
First I am a liberal now you are labeling me a conservative. You don't seem able to make up your mind.
Conservative!! You're a dirty, dirty conservative!

:rolleyes:
You are missing the point completely.
First I am a liberal now you are labeling me a conservative. You don't seem able to make up your mind.
Well, I think you are a liberal, but it's you who is missing the point. I'm going to call you something that you definitely aren't, since that's what you are doing to me.

I used to. I made a sincere effort to be civil when I started here but increasingly nasty personal attacks that the so-called "moderates" were defending and a death threat later, I realized that nobody on here has any respect for or interest in civil discourse.
I do. I've never personally attacked you or anyone else on here, or at least not in a very long time. In any case, you're not going to get anywhere with creating civil discourse if your only response to incivility is more incivility. That creates an endless negative spiral, and makes you a big part of the problem. Let the insults roll off of you, as I have learned to do, and don't respond to them, and you'll do just fine.

Conservative!! You're a dirty, dirty conservative!

Well I did take your advice and I have been responding just like a Conservative lately.

The dirty conservative says what?

I used to. I made a sincere effort to be civil when I started here but increasingly nasty personal attacks that the so-called "moderates" were defending and a death threat later, I realized that nobody on here has any respect for or interest in civil discourse.

Now I give what I get.
Why not leave? Trust me, you won't be missed all that much...

Vile deleted my second death threat as well.

Shucks. *kicks dirt*

It isn't my fault he isn't getting what I said. He takes this shit too seriously, anyway.

It isn't my fault he isn't getting what I said. He takes this shit too seriously, anyway.
A lot of people do. If there's one thing of which we cannot accuse you, it's taking things too seriously. Now, other accusations... well that's a different matter. ;)

Well, I think you are a liberal, but it's you who is missing the point. I'm going to call you something that you definitely aren't, since that's what you are doing to me.

ROFL!!!

You started the labeling so I find your whining about it very funny.

If you don't like being labeled, don't do it to me.

:lolhit:

Why not leave?

Because it pisses you off that I stay.

:lolhit:

Because it pisses you off that I stay.

A true legend in your own mind.

ROFL!!!

You started the labeling so I find your whining about it very funny.

If you don't like being labeled, don't do it to me.

:lolhit:
Didn't I already say more than once that I don't care what you call me (unless it's a bad word or a really offensive insult, I cry when you do that)? Do you think I'm lying about that?

Didn't I already say more than once that I don't care what you call me (unless it's a bad word or a really offensive insult, I cry when you do that)? Do you think I'm lying about that?

Yes, I do think you are lying.
It clearly does bother you that I call you a Conservative.
I think you are a conservative, just as you think I am a liberal. :rolleyes:

I think you are a conservative, just as you think I am a liberal. :rolleyes:
WHO CARES?! STOP ARGUING ABOUT THIS! IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Yes, I do think you are lying.
It clearly does bother you that I call you a Conservative.
I think you are a conservative, just as you think I am a liberal. :rolleyes:
Well if I'm bothered about being called a conservative, then you must be bothered about being called a liberal....

IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Agreed.

Nanny nanny boo boo! Y'all are made of poo poo!

Because it pisses you off that I stay.
It doesn't piss me off. I weep for you, I truly do....

Oh well, keep fighting the good fight, I guess.

What a fucking tosser.

What a fucking tosser.

Yes, you certainly are.

Dharma.. since you are now a conservative, here is the passcode for rigging the voting machines, keep it "hush-hush".. welcome aboard

:rolleyes:

Dharma.. since you are now a conservative, here is the passcode for rigging the voting machines, keep it "hush-hush".. welcome aboard


Too late. I already know how to hack one.

The video has been on youtube for months. :lolhit:

I hate it when I have to reply to a post and it's several pages back, dammit.

And you are Anti-American Boy, you just don't see it.

Having a conservative view of how corporations should be ran here in America doesn't quite fall into the category of being anti-American, dammit.

Firstly, if the market dictates that people need to make $18 an hour to live in a certain area, then that is what they should be paying. Meijers is a unionized grocery store and they have some of the lowest prices around.

People have to be responsible for themselves. If it takes $18 an hour to make ends meet then people should get the skills that are WORTH $18 an hour. It does take extra time and effort to earn those skills, but the results, the pay, the sense of accomplishment are well worth it, dammit.

When the government starts raising the minimum, which isn't intended to be a livable wage in the first place, what happens is that the very poor and uneducated start losing jobs because their employer can't afford to keep them.

Also, if Meijers is able to have pay union wages and compete as a supermarket, I have zero problem with it, dammit.

And what is Wal-Mart doing that is so revolutionary?

The core of the Wal-Mart revolution was that Sam Walton charged less for his products and depended on QUANTITY of sales to make a profit. It worked out quite well, dammit. Rather than stifle the way Wal-Mart operates, it's a better idea to come up with an even better way of doing business, I've already pointed that out, dammit.

General Stores did none of those things, you retard. General stores bought goods from the makers of shoes, clothes and nails. All LOCAL suppliers and that invigorated the local economy.

Actually, this was right about the time when England began to industrialize. Products a general store wanted were shipped here, for a while at least. (memory somewhat vague here, but the essence is correct, dammit.)

Again, you are giving examples that have nothing whatsoever to do with Wal-Mart's practices or why they are criticized. You are proving that you are Anti-American with every word.

The point being is that the way things are done DO get changed, in an open society/market. Yes, it can be "unfair" to certain groups, but it does benefits the most people over the long run. People adapt to those changes, it WILL happen with Wal-Mart, if the government gets out of the way and lets the people figure out how.

Yes, thats it! Everyone in America can become a doctor or a lawyer!

I NEVER mentioned becoming a doctor or lawyer in my rebuttals, never. Where on earth did you come up with that? I did mention plumber, electrician and dental hygenist, which are good paying jobs and can be had with a couple of years of working hard, which is my point. IF you want a better job, WORK for it, dammit.

With WHAT?!? Do you think everyone who is unemployeed is going to have enough liquid capital laying around to buy an investment property?!?

I work at a casino and I KNOW dealers, blackjack, poker, craps and such that DID work hard and DID buy duplexes and are living in one half of the duplex and letting the renter in the other half pay their mortgage for them. Hell, I BOUGHT my place from working six day weeks for several months on end. It CAN be done, if you're willing to work at it, dammit.

No, it doesn't. If you have limited means you aren't going to get the business loan you will need to get started in the first place.

Work hard, get yourself oustanding credit and save your money. It worked for me, the reason I got the place I live in is because my credit was just a shade short of being absolutely perfect and I had saved a good chunk of money, dammit. Oh, and never stop improving your skills, admittedly I need to work on that one, dammit.

Like your examples, television, coke and music? Oh yes, Boy, those arevery vital. </sarcasm>

Tell me Darth Boy, when did you first realize you are Anti-American?

I was thinking of Victor Bolenko when writing this and remembering that the stuff I take for granted were astounding luxuries to Bolenko. People here in the U.S. don't what it's like to wait in line for hours to get a piece of beef, or what it's like to be 12 and not know what cheese tastes like, or what it's like to have free medical care but to be served by doctors who don't care about you, or what it's like to have to travel to another city and have to sleep in the train station because there were no hotels, period. This was reality to Bolenko till he fled the Soviet Union, not to mention the filth, crime, hypocracy and corruption that infested that state.

I did stray off topic a bit and was thinking how vibrant our society really is, because of corporations and entrepreneurs and business men who do see a place in the market where they can provide a service for people and make a profit from compared to a style of government that claims it takes care of its people yet does a very, very poor job, dammit.

Coke, I-Pods, and other such luxuries aren't really "needed" by us, but its nice that not only do we have those things, but they're so easily affordable, dammit.

If it takes $18 an hour to make ends meet then people should get the skills that are WORTH $18 an hour.

This is the attitude on the part of so many Conservatives that is so infuriating.

Did you have the requisite intellect, the life situation, the support and the educational foundation to be able to "get the $18 an hour skills".......yes, you probably did.

Did I have the requisite intellect, the life situation, the support and the educational foundation to be able to "get the $18 an hour skills".......yes, I did.

But does EVERYONE in America have the requisite intellect, the life situation, the support and the educational foundation to be able to "get the $18 an hour skills".......NO.

Surely you can see how -for instance- a teenage inner city kid, whose mother is single, who is being raised in a housing project, just MIGHT have a bit more difficulty, when he grows to be 18 or 20, to simply go out and "get the $18 an hour skills".

Then agan, maybe you can't see it.

The core of the Wal-Mart revolution was that Sam Walton charged less for his products and depended on QUANTITY of sales to make a profit. It worked out quite well, dammit. Rather than stifle the way Wal-Mart operates, it's a better idea to come up with an even better way of doing business

"stifle"...?

Please.

If it "stifles" Wal-Mart to pay their workers a fair wage and to comply with the federal wage guidelines and to not purposely drive smaller businesses out, then YES, they need to be "stifled".

It is NOT going to break Wal-Mart to pay their workers fairly.

The only thing I can agree with you on is the idea of inner city minorities not having good oppurtunities or prospects. It DOES hurt them. The worst thing that was ever done to the black family is have a welfare check replace the father, dammit.

The worst thing that was ever done to the black family is have a welfare check replace the father, dammit.
Amen.

Surely you can see how -for instance- a teenage inner city kid, whose mother is single, who is being raised in a housing project, just MIGHT have a bit more difficulty, when he grows to be 18 or 20, to simply go out and "get the $18 an hour skills.
Who cares? It's called natural selection.

I guess these megalomaniacs want to stop evolution now as well as control earths climate!

Who cares? It's called natural selection.
LOL... That's actually kind of a good point. If you can't survive, you won't. Whatever.

And I know everyone is going to bitch at me now for being insensitive, well so the fuck what, I'm insensitive. I've had a hard life, full of mistakes that affected me whether it was me who made them or not, but I'm going to college and working my ass off so I can do better than my parents. Even with all the mental and emotional problems I have, I still hold myself to a higher standard than my peers. I don't just want to pass my classes; I will not be happy with less than a 4.0 GPA. I know some people haven't had much opportunity, or have had things in their way, or aren't that smart, but if you work hard enough and let people help you you can do anything you want. I'm kind of off on a tangent here, but really, I see people at school who are just sitting there slacking off. Sitting in the back of the classroom talking, not doing their homework, waltzing into class late because they "had to smoke a cigarette". Sometimes it's hard for me to wake up at 5:30 in the morning, with hardly any sleep because I have trouble sleeping, and actually go to school. But I'm going to keep doing it.

Okay, end of rant.

LOL... That's actually kind of a good point. If you can't survive, you won't. Whatever.

And I know everyone is going to bitch at me now for being insensitive, well so the fuck what, I'm insensitive. I've had a hard life, full of mistakes that affected me whether it was me who made them or not, but I'm going to college and working my ass off so I can do better than my parents. Even with all the mental and emotional problems I have, I still hold myself to a higher standard than my peers. I don't just want to pass my classes; I will not be happy with less than a 4.0 GPA. I know some people haven't had much opportunity, or have had things in their way, or aren't that smart, but if you work hard enough and let people help you you can do anything you want. I'm kind of off on a tangent here, but really, I see people at school who are just sitting there slacking off. Sitting in the back of the classroom talking, not doing their homework, waltzing into class late because they "had to smoke a cigarette". Sometimes it's hard for me to wake up at 5:30 in the morning, with hardly any sleep because I have trouble sleeping, and actually go to school. But I'm going to keep doing it.

Okay, end of rant.

This is the kind of person who succeeds in life and doesn't have to depend on Wal-Mart for their health insurance, dammit.

This is the kind of person who succeeds in life and doesn't have to depend on Wal-Mart for their health insurance, dammit.
Thank you :D

...depends on Wal-Mart for their health insurance? I don't get that... :@@:

Who cares? It's called natural selection.

No. It is the opposite.

It is UN-natural selection; people having major stumbling blocks in their way because of something not their fault, but the unfortunate circumstances of their birth and the cultural millieu that they are sentenced to grow up in.

It seems to me that one of THE primary reasons for even HAVING a government is to provide a helping hand to those among us who are underpriviledged.

Contrary to what you, with your juvenile redneck views, would have us believe, it does not cost society to help these people become more educated, to help them develop job skills, to help them until they're able to stand on their own, to shepherd tham along to becoming productive members of society............it PAYS society to help them.

No. It is the opposite.

It is UN-natural selection; people having major stumbling blocks in their way because of something not their fault, but the unfortunate circumstances of their birth and the cultural millieu that they are sentenced to grow up in.

It seems to me that one of THE primary reasons for even HAVING a government is to provide a helping hand to those among us who are underpriviledged.

Contrary to what you, with your juvenile redneck views, would have us believe, it does not cost society to help these people become more educated, to help them develop job skills, to help them until they're able to stand on their own, to shepherd tham along to becoming productive members of society............it PAYS society to help them.

I agree with that, but how many underprivileged youths would take those opportunities? I'm a teenager and I know many, many other teenagers. Most of my friends have no interest in even going to college, and they are mostly from comfortable middle class families who could, with student loans, afford it. The people I observe at school, in a community college, seem more driven than the kids in high school, but most of them show a sad and surprising lack of initiative. Does it really take that much effort to do your homework, or even make an effort to do the classwork? Why even come to class if you're not going to take notes or even listen to the professor?

I'm quite disappointed with the state of the population of this country, especially the population of young people.

LOL... That's actually kind of a good point. If you can't survive, you won't. Whatever.

And I know everyone is going to bitch at me now for being insensitive, well so the fuck what, I'm insensitive. I've had a hard life, full of mistakes that affected me whether it was me who made them or not, but I'm going to college and working my ass off so I can do better than my parents. Even with all the mental and emotional problems I have, I still hold myself to a higher standard than my peers. I don't just want to pass my classes; I will not be happy with less than a 4.0 GPA. I know some people haven't had much opportunity, or have had things in their way, or aren't that smart, but if you work hard enough and let people help you you can do anything you want. I'm kind of off on a tangent here, but really, I see people at school who are just sitting there slacking off. Sitting in the back of the classroom talking, not doing their homework, waltzing into class late because they "had to smoke a cigarette". Sometimes it's hard for me to wake up at 5:30 in the morning, with hardly any sleep because I have trouble sleeping, and actually go to school. But I'm going to keep doing it.

Okay, end of rant.
That's all I'm trying to say, DF. Well put.

I agree with that, but how many underprivileged youths would take those opportunities?
That's EXACTLY the right question, DF. Once again, well put. I guess it's my juvenile redneck side speaking here, but I don't think society (as a whole) should be held responsible for those of us who haven't the slightest desire to improve their situational asperities.

All I want is for people to earn their keep; you know, to work for a living without the expectation of having to be provided that opportunity BY the people who ALREADY work for a living - like, in some way, we owe it to them because, "you know, it's better for US in the long run"...:rolleyes:

It's patent lunacy, period. As you said earlier, people are capable of doing anything they want - they just have to want it badly enough to be motivated in the first place. Without the motivation, the money is nothing more than a crutch; all we're doing is enabling them.

I don't think society (as a whole) should be held responsible for those of us who haven't the slightest desire to improve their situational asperities.

I agree that society at large should not be "held responsible".

Society should do it out of simple self-interest.

Better to have a worker, even if you have to pay to train that worker, than to have a non-worker.

All I want is for people to earn their keep; you know, to work for a living without the expectation of having to be provided that opportunity BY the people who ALREADY work for a living

Many americans--when faced with the choice of (a) a very meager government stipend and (b) working at a menial job doing shit work for little more pay than what the stipend amounts to-- are going to choose the stipend (welfare). That is a simple fact of life.

Society's job is to help motivate these people to want to get into a good job, and to make good jobs with decent wages widely available to people.

Either that, or the same sorry state of affiars that presently exists will continue.

It's society's choice.

Move forward, help people, motivate people, or just sit back like godamned redneck ninnies and grandly proclaim --"Aww, it's all just them lazy niggras who won't work that's the problem!"

There are people, who, believe it or not, cannot hack this life thing on their own. They're out there, walking the streets, filling our homeless shelters, raising our kids. Society needs to have a solution to deal with these people. Right now it's, "pander to them for votes by selling them half-baked solutions."

The answer isn't welfare, the answer isn't simply handing them a check every week so they can live. We could do that, but it wouldn't help. Nor does it help to tell people who cannot hack life, to get the discipline and just do it. Because if they could have, they would have. There is nothing great about poverty, nothing great about standing in the line for a shelter, nothing great about getting that welfare check.

We need something more, something better. A comprehensive solution. A way of gainfully or ungainfully employing these people so that their human dignity isn't compromised. Human beings need work for their soul. Some people cannot get that work on their own. We need a compassionate set of programs at both the national and local level to deal with it.

We could ignore it, but the economic costs of doing so, are only getting worse.

Here's what I think is interesting. Have you ever noticed that the 'natives' of whatever area you're talking about usually resist society's attempts to place them in 9-5 jobs? After all, that's OUR idea of what people should do, not necessarily theirs. I work at a place where we would gladly hire all the 'qualified' Native Americans we can get, but in fact, we only employ a few. Other professions like law enforcement, medicine, education, civic entities, etc. spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find 'minority' employees with little success (i.e., a Hispanic college grad can pretty much name their own salary). In general, I think there are alot of people in America who are genuinely satisfied to hold down low-paying jobs and eke out just enough money to make a living... without the added stress of 'keeping up with the Joneses' down the street.

For centuries, Mexicans, Africans, American Indians, Native Hawaiians, Caribbean Islanders, Eskimos, and many more cultures have been content to live off the land. The fact that they don't all jump at the 'opportunities' we offer them shouldn't come as any great surprise.

Of course it's a shame and a burden on our system when they don't work at all and expect to draw welfare. But given the choice of working hard for a living.... or taking a check that's offered to you, it's no wonder many opt for the check.

BTW, I started informally 'studying' this situation after a trip to Hawaii where I was surprised to notice that most service jobs were held by native Hawaiians. When I inquired about it, I was told they mostly like to work for no longer than a few months... then live off their earnings for the rest of the year. Hey! If I lived in paradise, I'd be tempted to live on fish and pineapples myself!

:)
SMW

I agree that society at large should not be "held responsible".

Society should do it out of simple self-interest.

Better to have a worker, even if you have to pay to train that worker, than to have a non-worker.
True.

It's undeniably better for a society to be productive, but that goes without saying.

In short, training the unwilling is an exercise in futility, and THAT'S the whole point. Furthermore, economically speaking, it isn't financially feasible for our government to "train workers". We'll leave that racket to the Russians, eh?
Many americans--when faced with the choice of (a) a very meager government stipend and (b) working at a menial job doing shit work for little more pay than what the stipend amounts to-- are going to choose the stipend (welfare). That is a simple fact of life.
I absolutely agree - they will bank on that stipend. Consequently, the answer is obvious: we should significantly cut the concession (of course, I don't mean entirely; some exceptions need to be made, but every welfare recipient should be given a bright pink MasterCard in which all expenses are closely scrutinized by our government, ergo - no cash advances, no stamps).

All I'm trying to say is that when people are given a choice between life and death, I'm guessing they'll pick up a mop with little to no hesitation at all. Hell, the blacks may even wind up giving the Mexicans a run for their money (pardon the pun) in the menial job department. (Of course, I wouldn't bank on it, but that's just me...)
Society's job is to help motivate these people to want to get into a good job, and to make good jobs with decent wages widely available to people.
Correction;

Society's "job" is to provide a situation where people are forced to make a simple choice: do you wanna work (where you can excel at what you do), or do you wanna starve to death...

As far as "decent wages" are concerned, I really think that's up to the marketplace and the individual worker, don't you? I mean, seriously, to suggest otherwise flies in the face of simple economics and rudimentary logic. We're not a "motivator" of people here. As a matter of fact, no one "motivates" anyone to do anything (unless you're talking about some warm, fuzzy movie where a prize-winning retard (played by Sean Penn, of course) is "motivated" to climb Mount Everest by his Special Olympics coach, but that's decidedly NOT reality…); MONEY MOTIVATES PEOPLE. Speaking of which, America offers you the ability to MAKE more of it than anywhere else, and you still have a problem with our country. What gives, man??? :D

There are people, who, believe it or not, cannot hack this life thing on their own. They're out there, walking the streets, filling our homeless shelters, raising our kids. Society needs to have a solution to deal with these people. Right now it's, "pander to them for votes by selling them half-baked solutions."
I fully agree. Talk to the dems about pandering for votes in regards to welfare with half-baked solutions - they're really good at it...
We could ignore it, but the economic costs of doing so, are only getting worse.
This is the part of your argument I don't understand. How is letting some asswipe freeze to death gonna "cost" us anything - especially when said asswipe contributes next to nothing in the first place? Ineffective social programs are the real money vacuum, and that's not up for dispute.

I mean, seriously, why wouldn't letting them die (wantonly, of course) be an example of natural selection at its best? Let's put it this way...productive society is most likely (well, 98% of the time, that is) going to spawn productive babies. Bums (i.e., menial workers) have a far greater chance of raising gutter pups, and given the averages associated with both, I'd accept the minimal loss of human life as nothing more than the cost of doing business.

Hell, bury 'em in a communal pit, throw some lye on their corpses, and call it a day. Problem solved.

Furthermore, economically speaking, it isn't financially feasible for our government to "train workers". We'll leave that racket to the Russians, eh?

We disagree.

If this insane asylum of a country can throw away a TRILLION goddamned dollars on the other side of the planet, making us less safe from terrorist attack and sacrificing 3000 young soldiers in the process, then it is damned well *economically feasible* to train Americans here for jobs.

We disagree.

If this insane asylum of a country can throw away a TRILLION goddamned dollars on the other side of the planet......
One bad executive decision shouldn't come in lieu of another.

We can't "afford" either, so let's not sidetrack the real issue here.

I.e., do you really think it's our government's job to train workers???

What responsibility, if any, do you think the individual should bear? I'm curious.

.....making us less safe from terrorist attack....
How so and what's your evidence?

You haven't heard?!?!

We've been attacked twice since 9/11.

No, the Bushes did those to drive up the price of oil.....no, the Cheney's for the military industrial co......no, to cover up Plamegate..... the cancellation of Punky Brewster...... the hidden dead of New Orlea..............

Dop's conspirafusion is contagious.

You haven't heard?!?!

We've been attacked twice since 9/11.

Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but which two times are you referring to?

Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but which two times are you referring to?I think he was just being neighborly and validating Free's fantasy.
He's an enabler.

I fully agree. Talk to the dems about pandering for votes in regards to welfare with half-baked solutions - they're really good at it...
Indeed. I think they take more than their share of the blame for it, though.

This is the part of your argument I don't understand. How is letting some asswipe freeze to death gonna "cost" us anything - especially when said asswipe contributes next to nothing in the first place? Ineffective social programs are the real money vacuum, and that's not up for dispute.

I mean, seriously, why wouldn't letting them die (wantonly, of course) be an example of natural selection at its best? Let's put it this way...productive society is most likely (well, 98% of the time, that is) going to spawn productive babies. Bums (i.e., menial workers) have a far greater chance of raising gutter pups, and given the averages associated with both, I'd accept the minimal loss of human life as nothing more than the cost of doing business.

Hell, bury 'em in a communal pit, throw some lye on their corpses, and call it a day. Problem solved.
Most people simply aren't as callous as you, Prae. As effective as it would be, it would nonetheless not be tolerated.

.... let's not sidetrack the real issue here.



for him, there is no other issue.

Having a conservative view of how corporations should be ran here in America doesn't quite fall into the category of being anti-American, dammit.

Actually your views are Anti-American for multiple reasons. One, they are concerning how corporations should be run world-wide, not just here in America. You make no distinctions between American and non-American corporations at all. Two, a real American conservative would want to conserve American jobs and businesses. They would not side with foreign corporations against the American people. You don't seem interested in conserving anything except the power of foreign corporations.



If it takes $18 an hour to make ends meet then people should get the skills that are WORTH $18 an hour. It does take extra time and effort to earn those skills, but the results, the pay, the sense of accomplishment are well worth it, dammit.

According to your view on how corporations should work, the only people worth that kind of money are executives (who don't have much in the way of skills at all). The people with the real skills; the engineers, technicians and programmers, (who put in the extra effort and got the skills) are having their jobs outsourced and those people are being told that their skills are not worth $18 an hour because some laborer in China will do the same work for $1.


When the government starts raising the minimum, which isn't intended to be a livable wage in the first place,

Wrong again. When FDR was stumping for the minimum wage act, he talked at length about the need for a living wage, as his cousin and predessor first articulated.

From Teddy Roosevelt (http://www.ssa.gov/history/trspeech.html)(A real conservative):

We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.


what happens is that the very poor and uneducated start losing jobs because their employer can't afford to keep them.

If a business cannot survive without paying slave wages, then that business should not exist. That is how the market works.



e of the Wal-Mart revolution was that Sam Walton charged less for his products and depended on QUANTITY of sales to make a profit.

Sam Walton did not invent that business strategy. Five and Dimes existed long before Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart was not as hated back when Sam Walton was around because he, unlike his spoiled kids, actually treated his workers well. They had profit sharing back when Sam Walton ran the company.


adapt to those changes, it WILL happen with Wal-Mart, if the government gets out of the way and lets the people figure out how.

Nonsense! The only group with the power to enforce any change on Wal-Mart is the government. That is how the people will do it, by using their government like they are supposed to. Having the government "get out of the way" is the same as asking a cop to "get out of the way" of a bank robber and hoping that the bank customers will somehow "figure out" a way to stop him instead.


IF you want a better job, WORK for it, dammit.

Are you saying that all those people who's jobs have been outsourced didn't "work hard" enough?


I work at a casino

That explains why you are so comfortable with the idea of life being one big crap shoot.


Work hard, get yourself oustanding credit and save your money. It worked for me,

Oh yes, What a pillar of society you are... working at a casino. </sarcasm>

Could I urge you to take a less confrontational view--don't call people anti-American, for example.

From all you posted, I can't really tell if you are for or against a minimum wage. I would point out that talk about a "living wage" doesn't mean much to the unemployed, and it is well known that any minimum wage that is high enough to be meaningful will cause unemployment. Economics is the "dismal science" because interventions to help one group always do so by hurting another.

In this case you help the employed by hurting those who become unemployed. This is politically popular with the economically ignorant and with those politicians who cynically buy their votes at the overall harm to the nation.

I call Brooks Anti-American because the opinions he espouses and the policies he defends are demonstratably Anti-American, as I pointed out. If he find that insulting then he should take a long hard look at himself and make an effort to change.

I am for a minimum wage because it was intended to be a living wage. What is the point of having a wage if you cannot live on it?

I have never seen any proof that a higher minimum wage causes unemployment. Wages are set by what the market will bear, assuming that everyone has equal representation (hense the need for unions). Higher wages might mean slightly higher prices, but that is it.

You tell me you have never seen any proof that minimum wages cause unemployment.

Have you ever looked?

Yes, of course. If you try to tell me it is "obvious" while continuing to show no proof of it, I am going to barf.

It is faily obvious, since you show no sign of wanting to know the truth about minimum wages, that you are an economic illiterate. You can be compared to the religious fundamtalist who refuses to learn about religions for fear it will interfere with their faith, although in your case it is because you fear it will interfere with your ideology.

Well This, it is safe to say you are talking out of your ass on this one.

As I stated before higher wages might mean higher prices but that is about it.

Well This, it is safe to say you are talking out of your ass on this one.

As I stated before higher wages might mean higher prices but that is about it.
As I say, you prefer ideology over knowledge. That is your choice, but with such ignorance don't expect to persuade anyone who is knowledgable.

I call Brooks Anti-American because the opinions he espouses and the policies he defends are demonstratably Anti-American, as I pointed out.Um, Brooks is not Darth.

Although if they were the same person they would be Darth Brooks, the evil anti-American country western singer.

http://dragonhelm.net/Darth_Brooks_3.jpg

http://dragonhelm.net/Darth_Brooks_3.jpg
Absolutely one of the FUNNIEST things I've seen in a LONG TIME!

That was fucking sidesplitting! :D

I am for a minimum wage because it was intended to be a living wage.

Says who?

What is the point of having a wage if you cannot live on it?


To buy a crappy Camaro to drive to high school every day while you live with your parents.

making us less safe from the threat of terrorist attack...-------Freethinker


How so and what's your evidence?

Terror threat higher since 9/11, report says

By Mark Mazzetti The New York Times

Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington who were involved in preparing the assessment or have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside the government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," one U.S. intelligence official said.

More than a dozen U.S. government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document.

The officials included employees of several government agencies and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the document or participated in the creation of drafts of it.

The officials discussed some of the document's general conclusions but not its details, which remain highly classified. Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on U.S. territory.

The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism and the question of whether the United States is safer have been subjects of debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and they are approved by John Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on the analysis of raw intelligence collected by all the spy agencies.

The judgments in the estimate confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report that was completed in January 2003, two months before the invasion of Iraq.

That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

"Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe," concludes one, a report titled "9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges." "We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism."

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihadist movement. "The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry," it states.

On Wednesday, the Republican- controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based on unclassified documents, details a growing jihadist movement and says that "Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack."

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of operatives and groups affiliated with Al Qaeda to include a new class of "self-generating" cells inspired by Al Qaeda but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorists who no longer have refuges in such countries as Afghanistan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now; go ahead and make another imbecilic-- "he was just validating Free's fantasy" -- remark.

Go ahead and tell us how all this is just the propagandistic anti-American spewings of evil America-haters like David Low, the national intelligence officer, who oversaw the gathering of the National Intelligence Estimates.

Yes, of course. If you try to tell me it is "obvious" while continuing to show no proof of it, I am going to barf.
I'm completely in agreement with you on this one, dharma. I know there is a logical economic explanation for the idea that unemployment goes up when the minimum wage is increased, but I have yet to see proof. Didn't I post a graph of unemployment rates in another thread? It didn't say anything about wage hikes, but it did show that when the president was Democrat, unemployment sank, and when the president was Republican, unemployment spiked. Now, I think we can safely assume that Democrats were more likely to implement minimum wage hikes, right?

As I say, you prefer ideology over knowledge.

Why? Becuase I don't buy into your unsubstantiated fear mongering about a minimum wage?

Um, Brooks is not Darth.


Oops, you are right. All those rightwingers start to blend together after a whlie.

Yeah, because all you fuckers are sooooo original, right? What, with your hackneyed sayings and hokum postings, you're real cutting edge, for sure.... :rolleyes:

Get bent, Corky.

*sigh*

Actually your views are Anti-American for multiple reasons.
Annoyed by my labelling you as anti-corporate? Your little smear of branding me as anti-American isn't going to fly with anybody who knows anything about me, dammit. Find another. People like you, if people like you, with your ideas how corporations get ran ever get enough power in Congress and start floating your little proposals for corporations, stripping them of their "human" rights, limiting the length of time a corporation may exist, shutting them out of the political process whilst taxing the crap out of them and then mandating that anybody hired must get perk after perk after perk and you will see a massive exodus of corporations to other nations and unemployment will skyrocket. Look to France for that one, in France by law it's almost impossible to fire a person hired and the result is that it's almost impossible for the minorty Muslim population to GET a job in the first place. One weakness in a thousand with the French economy.

You don't seem interested in conserving anything except the power of foreign corporations.
What I seem to be interested in is making and keeping the U.S. a business friendly nation.

According to your view on how corporations should work, the only people worth that kind of money are executives (who don't have much in the way of skills at all).
More ignorance? You'll have one hell of a time finding a post of me saying anything of the sort. I've STATING that people need to strive to get the kind of skills needed to make a decent living.

As for executives, they EARN the kind of money their getting. There is fierce competition for a good exec, they must run that company like an entrepeneur and the must make their company profit. A corporation exec last, on average, only six years or so as the head of a corporation before their replaced, a very, very cut throat environment the execs live in, with very long hours and very heavy responsibility. I think it was George Will that detailed that.

The people with the real skills; the engineers, technicians and programmers, (who put in the extra effort and got the skills) are having their jobs outsourced and those people are being told that their skills are not worth $18 an hour because some laborer in China will do the same work for $1.
People with skills can always find another job in another sector with a bit of training.

Wrong again. When FDR was stumping for the minimum wage act, he talked at length about the need for a living wage, as his cousin and predessor first articulated.
Okay, going by the argument that people need to make a livable wage, why not make the minimum wage $25 an hour? If you want to employ somebody, it's either $50,000 a year or you don't hire someone and don't forget the free health insurance, dammit.

If a business cannot survive without paying slave wages, then that business should not exist. That is how the market works.
Your right, every single business that could only afford "slave" wages will not be in business at all. So every single teen looking for work, the college students, the retired looking for a bit of part time income, the housewife looking for a bit of extra money, people looking to get their foot in the door of a company won't have a job at all. But the jobs that are out there will be real good paying jobs, provided you can be hired at all, dammit.

Sam Walton did not invent that business strategy. Five and Dimes existed long before Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart was not as hated back when Sam Walton was around because he, unlike his spoiled kids, actually treated his workers well. They had profit sharing back when Sam Walton ran the company.
Gobbledegook. FIRST it was the shopping mall that was vilified because it did close down shopping on Main Street in Small Town U.S.A. but vilifying malls tarred too many people including many who were operating a small business. The scapegoating got shifted to Wal-Mart because it IS a single entity, dammit.

Nonsense! The only group with the power to enforce any change on Wal-Mart is the government.
Does Wal-Mart need to be "stopped?" For what? Selling cheap goods?

Are you saying that all those people who's jobs have been outsourced didn't "work hard" enough?
I'm saying that people can make a living with hard work and know-how. I'm saying that people who don't sit in the mud and cry do find a way of making a living, dammit.

That explains why you are so comfortable with the idea of life being one big crap shoot.
Yes, and then you go and miss the part where I stated that some of the people I know have bought houses and are getting ahead in life.

Oh yes, What a pillar of society you are... working at a casino. </sarcasm>
Is smear the best you can do? If I was working as a corporate exec making a hundred an hour you'd have said that I was some big corporate type who doesn't care about the average worker or some such idiocy you have a talent for vomiting. That little reply of yours is absolute garbage. I'm not ashamed of what I do, I like my work. Also, I don't go and snipe at people who do work hard and make a living for themselves at whatever they're employed at, dammit. That is the attitude of a loser, which you should be quite familiar with, dammit.