To Democrats: 13 Days

[roughrider]

As you all are aware of the election is in 13 days. I must stress to you, my dem. brothers and sisters, how important it is that we win this election and free ourselves of another 4 years of Bush. This man has tried to take away our civil rights under the guise of the PATRIOT Act, has invaded another country unilaterally while drumming up support at home by lieing to the American public during the State of the Union Address. He has raped Social Security, privatized the health care system and left no child a dime for education. He ballooned the national debt to over 7.4 trillion dollars forcing the government to take emergency action and shut down programs. Bush is the only president in our countrys history to have never vetoed a spending bill and he is also the only president to have cut taxes while at war. This president is a menace to the world and it is time to take action! As I have said before, there are 13 days till the election and in those 13 days we can achieve incredible things. I beg you, especially if you are in any kind of swing state, to go door to door and express why you will be voting for John Kerry. Stand on a busy streetcorner with a sign and remind people of the importance of the election. Pass out pamphlets or volunteer at the local DNC. Get out the vote! Remind republicans that Bush does not stand for them. Remind them that the republican party was once that of responsiblity and how it is time to bring it back to the white house!

Lastly, let us not sit by and have the media decide who will win this election. Lets go out and take the issues to the people directly!

Sincerely,
Tom Wheeler

[anjang86]

oh... snap... you've done it now..

[CharlotteLax1]

Four more years!

[anjang86]

Which one of your civil rights as a citizen have been infringed upon?

Dude we went over this and you asked the same question

[OcLaxer22]

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[OcLaxer22]

Yeah im kinda interested in what hes gonna say as a come back to that question.

[LatinBabe]

that middle-easterners are being called out by race for questioning which is agaisnt our constitution to stereotype that way without probable cause.

but with national security being as it is, i see nothing wrong with it. if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother you either.

[roughrider]

And you mentioned that non-citizens are denied the rights they never were entitled to in the first place. My question had to do with what rights citizens are denied.

I can be arrested, as a US citizen, without being told what my crime was. I can be held for an indefinite amount of time without ever seeing a lawyer. In this amount of time I can be quetioned, without my knowledge of my rights, and without my lawyer. Then, if it comes to it, I can be tried-without a jury-in a military court where information about my case can be hidden from the public. I can also be spied upon by the gov. without a warrant in hand-wiretaps, search and seizure, my emails read. All of this is allowed under the Patriot Act. These laws were proposed to fight terrorism but have since been used to look at abortion records, and have been used against common criminals.

[RaiderLacrosse]

One thing that surprised me the most, is that the Lonestar Iconoclast, Bush's hometown newspaper, wrote a 4 page article nominating John Kerry as their official presidential nominee. It stated that 4 years ago, the Iconoclast fully supported Bush, and believed in what he was doing. Now, 4 years later, is outraged at the path of misconception and let downs that our current office has lead us to. It is time for change. Let us begin our economic recovery, let us begin rebuilding the bridges with our foreign allies that he Bush administration has burnt, let us retie and mend our bond with UN, let us give the jobless a place to work, let us start the long journey back to a National surplus and market equilibrium, let us rid ourselves of this deceitful, war hungry man, let us take responsibility for our actions as a world power, let us be the nation we once were.

Lonestar Iconoclast Presidential Nomination Article: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

Keep in mind that anything written in this article IS and MUST be true by law, because this is an official newspaper. Also keep in mind, that this newspaper has put their reputation, reader support, and business on the line by writing such a controversial editorial. Controversial why? Because this is the newspaper from the hometown of George W. Bush. Let those who have everything to lose speak first.

[anjang86]

What do you expect as a 'come back' Oc? "your mom.. blah blah.."

anyways my point is (and i said this allready) if they are gonna deny rights to non-citizens now they can use this as a stepping stone to deny rights to regular citizens later. There's really nothing stopping them.

If your gonna defend the Patriot Act go ahead and talk about how its a precautionary measure, and that we have to give up some rights to protect ourself, dont try to defend it by saying that people do not have their rights taken away from them; because I think even Bush would agree that the Patriot Act requires us to give up some of our freedom for the good of our society.

non citizens can be taken into custody w/ no attorney representation based on simple suspicion by the govn't... you really dont think there's something wrong with that?

[roughrider]

that middle-easterners are being called out by race for questioning which is agaisnt our constitution to stereotype that way without probable cause.

but with national security being as it is, i see nothing wrong with it. if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother you either.

whether you have something to hide or not it delves into the greatest part of our country-our rights as american citizens.

[anjang86]

that middle-easterners are being called out by race for questioning which is agaisnt our constitution to stereotype that way without probable cause.

but with national security being as it is, i see nothing wrong with it. if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother you either.

not just middle easterners....

[anjang86]

if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother you either.


you sure about that? Because we have innocent people who have nothing to hide get accused and arrested a lot.. luckily the court system and our legal system can catch this before it gets any worse

too bad the legal system doesn't exist under the "Patriot" Act

[LatinBabe]

non citizens can be taken into custody w/ no attorney representation based on simple suspicion by the govn't... you really dont think there's something wrong with that?

no i don't... they are not citizens and thus do not deserve our rights. i know it's harsh, but we have tests to show that they are not just a terrorist refugee coming to the USA, and are sincere in their loyalty to the USA.

roughrider... it's war time. in WWII many rights were handed over to secure the homeland. this is only different in the fact we a now dealing with a tougher enemy; a terrorist. you cannot expect to go to war with another country and not expect security to tighten immensly. now don't start up with the, "it's Bush's fault we are here to begin with" because it sure wasn't Bush's fault that the twin towers fell. what did clinton do when the towers were bombed in the basement and MEANT to do the damage that occured 9/11 while the last attacks were designed to disable the upper floors... not knock down the buildings.

[anjang86]

no i don't... they are not citizens and thus do not deserve our rights. i know it's harsh, but we have tests to show that they are not just a terrorist refugee coming to the USA, and are sincere in their loyalty to the USA

I'm sorry to say this but the naturalization process in our country is a bunch of bullsht.. sorry to be rude but you nor anybody here will truly understand how messed up the system has become. These 'tests' that you speak of mean nothing really.. any terrorist will be able to pass them.

I hate sounding like a whiney angry foreigner immigrant but I'm going to have to for a second here.

our family has been frigin sincere in our loyalty to come to the US and what do we get? a frigin letter that tells us our visa expires and that we have to return home? seriously we got that two years ago just before i graduated from HS.. we'd allreayd been here for over a decade (my dad longer) and they say we have to go home now? luckily we appealed and it held up so were gonna get our green card sometime... hopefully...

here's the best part of it all, this other guy we know entered this 'lottery' system in from back home and won it.. guess what the prize was? a free american greencard.. thats right... a greencard for entering a lottery. He became a greencard holder in 6 months and works at a food court and a dry cleaners and my dad's been diong his phd and is a professor and has to wait 13 years and counting for the INS or CNS w/e to review our case for a Green Card.

oh another classic case comeing up.. theres this other guy who's only been here a year.. he became some cook at some resturant and got the INS to santion himself in the US because she has a 'special skill'

so I guess I should get back to my point.. which is that singling out citizens and non citizen immigrants is totally pointless. Anybody has the potential to become a terrorist in this country and these 'tests' do not prove anything.

If your gonna go through w/ the "patriot" act you might as well only check the bags of all the brown people going through the metal detectors in the airports

[anjang86]

I dont understand why non-citizens dont deserve teh same rights, what have you or anyone else done to earn these rights? You earn these rights because you live in teh US. Non-citizens live here too. Some rights they shouldnt have (right to vote) but some rights (especially legal rights) they should be able to hang on to.

What stops the CIA or FBI from busting in my house right now and taking everyone in my family (except for my 9 year old brother who somehow magically 'deserved' some rights) into custody?

[LatinBabe]

citizens pay taxes... they pay for their rights. yes i believe that all men/women are created equal, but freedom isn't free. you pay it in the form of taxes and/or military service; whereas non-citizens are not obliged to do so.

[anjang86]

citizens pay taxes... they pay for their rights. yes i believe that all men/women are created equal, but freedom isn't free. you pay it in the form of taxes and/or military service; whereas non-citizens are not obliged to do so.

what taxes are you talking about?

[roughrider]

no i don't... they are not citizens and thus do not deserve our rights. i know it's harsh, but we have tests to show that they are not just a terrorist refugee coming to the USA, and are sincere in their loyalty to the USA.

roughrider... it's war time. in WWII many rights were handed over to secure the homeland. this is only different in the fact we a now dealing with a tougher enemy; a terrorist. you cannot expect to go to war with another country and not expect security to tighten immensly. now don't start up with the, "it's Bush's fault we are here to begin with" because it sure wasn't Bush's fault that the twin towers fell. what did clinton do when the towers were bombed in the basement and MEANT to do the damage that occured 9/11 while the last attacks were designed to disable the upper floors... not knock down the buildings.

To tighten security does not mean give away rights! the US government is taking away the right to trial by jury, it is taking away the right to consulting a lawyer, a speedy trial. If we allow this what are they going to restrict next? If they are not citizens of the Us then it could be argued they shouldnt have to be treated with the right of an american. that in itself would be a valid agrument, however why are we ignoring international law. memos from the feds authorizing the prisoners in captivity do not have to be held to the geneva accord standards is not right!

Just because it doesnt affect you doesnt mean its not wrong.

A closing thought. We are trying american citizens in military courts-does this remind you of something in history? Perhaps the Sugar Act in the 1760 which allowed colonists (british citizens) to be tried in admiralty courts (navy courts). This, the colonists felt, voliated their rights as citizens and this example was used in the declaration of independence as vailidation for the nulification of the colonies from britain. revolution was caused by what is happening today. In no way is this right and I have every right to be mad!

[Longest]

what taxes are you talking about?

How about the federal income tax for one.

Dan

[roughrider]

Humanism seems to be forgotten here. We dont have to share our wealth with the world. We dont have to support those who come here for a better life. They, however, are human too. Why deny rights to a man because he comes from Mexico, jordan or the Ukraine? Why should these rights that we hold, these unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, be given to someone because they do not belong to our country. I thought the bill of rights were to protect the rights that should be for all mankind, but maybe I am just old fashioned. Maybe perhaps non americans do not classify to mankind. why should rights only apply to those in our favor? We go to Iraq to impose freedom and liberty and we show a fine example of this great humanistic idea by toturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garaib

[Longest]

Humanism seems to be forgotten here. We dont have to share our wealth with the world. We dont have to support those who come here for a better life. They, however, are human too. Why deny rights to a man because he comes from Mexico, jordan or the Ukraine? Why should these rights that we hold, these unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, be given to someone because they do not belong to our country. I thought the bill of rights were to protect the rights that should be for all mankind, but maybe I am just old fashioned. Maybe perhaps non americans do not classify to mankind. why should rights only apply to those in our favor? We go to Iraq to impose freedom and liberty and we show a fine example of this great humanistic idea by toturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garaib

Depends on what rights you're talking about. More and more institutions today are creating inherent "rights". Rights to life, to abortion on demand, to a living wage, to quality schools, to habeaus corpus, to snort taco meat up our nose, or any other weird combination. So good luck getting anyone to decide that noncitizen war criminals or terrorists have an "inalienable" right to habeas corpus when we're not torturing them or beating them wholesale. The incident at Abu Garaib is the exception, NOT the rule.

Dan

[nVlax]

what does iraq have to do with the two towers falling?

[anjang86]

How about the federal income tax for one.

Dan

huh? my parents pay these taxes... I do too now

I dont get it, I thought everybody payed taxes

[TheKOB]

To tighten security does not mean give away rights! the US government is taking away the right to trial by jury, it is taking away the right to consulting a lawyer, a speedy trial. If we allow this what are they going to restrict next? If they are not citizens of the Us then it could be argued they shouldnt have to be treated with the right of an american. that in itself would be a valid agrument, however why are we ignoring international law. memos from the feds authorizing the prisoners in captivity do not have to be held to the geneva accord standards is not right!

Just because it doesnt affect you doesnt mean its not wrong.


When has this happened? When has this been done? If it hasn't been done, then what you're spouting is rhetoric, pure and simple....and the usual from you, sadly enough.

Also the argument that the good of the many outweigh the rights of a few.

In terms of racial profiling....terrorists are Arabs and Islamic with the exception of Terry Nicholes and Tim McVeigh. You can spout off the how this isn't fair, but it does make sense.

Also, I've been searched at airports so many times while seeing a guy who looked Arab walk into the plane. I doubt what you're saying is happening.

Perhaps they think that with an Irish name, I'm with the IRA?

[Longest]

huh? my parents pay these taxes... I do too now

I dont get it, I thought everybody payed taxes

Do you think terrorist suspects who sneak into the country pay them? That's the real issue.

Dan

[anjang86]

Do you think terrorist suspects who sneak into the country pay them? That's the real issue.

Dan

wait man, talk about one thing at a time

are we talking about non-citizens or illegal immigrants? non-citizens pay all the taxes, illegal immigrants dont... both are under watch by the "patriot" act

[Longest]

wait man, talk about one thing at a time

are we talking about non-citizens or illegal immigrants? non-citizens pay all the taxes, illegal immigrants dont... both are under watch by the "patriot" act

Well since I thought the main thrust of this thread was about terrorist suspects and their "rights" under the Patriot Act, the latter. If you want to talk about the former, we can. Taxes are taxes and if I was wrong about that, I was wrong and I take my lumps. But I still maintain that without citizenship, your claims to all these varying rights is not as solid as with citizenship (not that I believe in all these varying made-up rights anyway).

Dan

[OcLaxer22]

Im still failling to realize how the Demi's Condem Scott Petterson for killing his unborn child but yet if lacey petterson would have done it, It would have been legal.

[V-cut]

^^ because the are conservatives and arn't gonna vote against it.

the espionage act didn't bring up so much protest... and it was far worse than this. i say bring in the alien and sedition acts from the grave-yard as well. hoo-rah.

[Frndlefire]

Great, now that you have stated why its all bad, I get to bring up that John Kerry voted FOR the patriot act.

the Patriot Act in itself is not a bad thing, however there are some parts of it that give the law enforcement agencies too much power. Because these small parts are not very significant (in the sense that they are not very long word wise) and since Senators hardly read everything that comes across their desks it's hardly a talking point that Kerry voted for it. Personally, I dont care who voted for it and it should have been voted for. I just think that we need to go back and change a few things here and there which could be used in ways that infringe on our more established rights.

[V-cut]

see the thing about Kerry, is that i don't want no flip flops in the white house.
flip-
To react strongly, as with anger or enthusiasm. To go crazy.
flop-
To fall, sink, or throw one's self, heavily, clumsily, and unexpectedly on the ground.

neither sounds very appetizing.

now, i would expect a senator to read what he's signing... because they should know that people do look at their records when and if they want to be elected for another office. i.e. presidency. and if you do something stupid (atleast from democrat POV) then it's gonna hurt you later. like kerry signing the patriot act.

[Biffman49]

Ah, kerry isnt responsible for what he votes for because he voted for something that he never read or fully understood...

And you want this guy in the white house? Im certainly not saying he should have read it word by word, but if he didnt know that much about it before he voted for it he doesnt belong in congress, much less the white house.

There was recently a questionnaire done by members of the Senate and Congress and it proved that something like 90% of all members don't fully read every bill that comes their way. I'll try and find a link to it, but it is somewhat understandable considering the busy schedule that these people have.

[Frndlefire]

now, i would expect a senator to read what he's signing... because they should know that people do look at their records when and if they want to be elected for another office. i.e. presidency. and if you do something stupid (atleast from democrat POV) then it's gonna hurt you later. like kerry signing the patriot act.

None of the Senators read them. I believe there are even a number on record saying so. They get so many bills and such that come over their desks it would be incredible if they did. I'm not saying it is in the slightest a good thing, I want a leader that reads everything before agreeing to it. However, this is not the reality of the situation. At this point I initially went off on a tirade about miscontruing voting records...but I decided against it and deleted it because I just don't care to getting into a huge battle here.

[Frndlefire]

I never said he should read it word for word, if you looked, I said "Im certainly not saying he should have read it word by word".

Reading it word for word and knowing what the bill will do are two totally seporate things. right, well, these provisions are not very large parts of the act. Even if they did skim over the Patrio Act like you want they could very easily not catch that these provisions could allow too much leeway.

[extreme lax]

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[V-cut]

dude... if a senator cannot read over every bill he signs, then he should 1) find someone who will. or 2) have their secretary concentrate the issues where it won't take all but a few moments to see what is going on.
if there really are so many senators not doing their jobs... i just may slip a bill in proposing making Bush theArchbishop of canterbury and see after how many generations it takes for it to be sorted out. something must be done. if they have a job and they don't do it, they should be eliminated. it's called incompetence, and around here if your incompetent you vote Kerry because you'll never get another job cus your a lazy slob. now i'm not saying that all democrats are lazy slobs, but a fair majority of them are those who live off free or reduced lunch.

[anjang86]

dude... if a senator cannot read over every bill he signs, then he should 1) find someone who will. or 2) have their secretary concentrate the issues where it won't take all but a few moments to see what is going on.
if there really are so many senators not doing their jobs... i just may slip a bill in proposing making Bush theArchbishop of canterbury and see after how many generations it takes for it to be sorted out. something must be done. if they have a job and they don't do it, they should be eliminated. it's called incompetence, and around here if your incompetent you vote Kerry because you'll never get another job cus your a lazy slob. now i'm not saying that all democrats are lazy slobs, but a fair majority of them are those who live off free or reduced lunch.

and a 'fair majority' of republicans are neo-nazi or radical Christian crusaders...

here I go on again with my life:
while my dad was a student I had to live off of free/reduced lunch because m dad had a limited income as a student and my mom wasn't allowed to work in the US.

[OcLaxer22]

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[V-cut]

and a 'fair majority' of republicans are neo-nazi or radical Christian crusaders...

here I go on again with my life:
while my dad was a student I had to live off of free/reduced lunch because m dad had a limited income as a student and my mom wasn't allowed to work in the US.

and most democrats are communists. not tryin to start an argument nrvlc, cus you and GMiddie are the only demos i respect here.

but... i never made a crack at those who live off free or reduced lunch, only those who do so because of their incompetence. now, i would bet that your father is a hard working man because generally someone wouldn't have such firm principals if his parents weren't so i won't get into that. do you have citizenship? do you pay taxes? are you obligated to serve in the military if a draft is instigated? i mean really, we could stop spending the amount we do trying to create a peaceful global economy were the american market WOULD skyrocket do to the increase in 2nd world countries as they become develpoing countries were they need materials, they need american goods. or we could screw the bright economic future for speeding up citizenship and providing aide to those who do not give back to society. now, your dad has a job, he IS giving back to the society by performing the work he does, but he gets his pay without income tax deducted. what else do you expect until you become citizens?

[anjang86]

and most democrats are communists. not tryin to start an argument nrvlc, cus you and GMiddie are the only demos i respect here.

but... i never made a crack at those who live off free or reduced lunch, only those who do so because of their incompetence. now, i would bet that your father is a hard working man because generally someone wouldn't have such firm principals if his parents weren't so i won't get into that. do you have citizenship? do you pay taxes? are you obligated to serve in the military if a draft is instigated? i mean really, we could stop spending the amount we do trying to create a peaceful global economy were the american market WOULD skyrocket do to the increase in 2nd world countries as they become develpoing countries were they need materials, they need american goods. or we could screw the bright economic future for speeding up citizenship and providing aide to those who do not give back to society. now, your dad has a job, he IS giving back to the society by performing the work he does, but he gets his pay without income tax deducted. what else do you expect until you become citizens?

I'm not trying to start an arguement with anybody here, I respect all the people on this board and I hate coming off as an angry person (especially in this thread) cause I barely ever get mad at anything. It's all good man...

back on topic though:

I dont know why everybody here thinks that we dont pay any income taxes. My dad payed the same taxes that all citizens pay. hell I even had to pay income tax this past year.. (my refund check was a whopping $4).

Besides military service or jury duty, we are serving this country in every way that you are.

[LatinBabe]

^^^^^green-card vs. illegal immigrants

[anjang86]

^^^^^green-card vs. illegal immigrants

ok honestly, I really hate to say this because its demeaning but some of you really don't know how this system works

I dont have a green-card and I'm not a citizen, but I'm not an illegal immigrant either.

[LatinBabe]

oops... misread your earlier post.

when you said "our family has been frigin sincere in our loyalty to come to the US and what do we get? a frigin letter that tells us our visa expires and that we have to return home?" i didn't read carefully enough and just thought the 10 years had passed and the greencard expired. sorry man. really didn't mean to offend you.

i know a fair amount on the system, i just thought you fit in a diff category... :dummy:

[anjang86]

sorry man. really didn't mean to offend you.

I never take any offense, dont worry

hey you wanna get married so I can get my green card?

[LatinBabe]

sure why not. i've always loved foreigners.

[OcLaxer22]

Hey, Im foreign ; )

[LatinBabe]

bah... i prefer people with principles.

so. yeah. bush sucks, kerry sucks... but, despite his serious issues, Bush is a better candidate.

[Longest]

I'm not trying to start an arguement with anybody here, I respect all the people on this board and I hate coming off as an angry person (especially in this thread) cause I barely ever get mad at anything. It's all good man...

back on topic though:

I dont know why everybody here thinks that we dont pay any income taxes. My dad payed the same taxes that all citizens pay. hell I even had to pay income tax this past year.. (my refund check was a whopping $4).

Besides military service or jury duty, we are serving this country in every way that you are.

You've said multiple times "Even I had to pay income tax". All working Americans in the system have money deducted. Did you expect to be different in that regard?

In your defense, the military service argument has no weight since the military only takes enlistees and the # of those they take is only a fraction of the population anyway. For jury duty, most would argue you're not missing anything anyway :-)

Dan

[anjang86]

You've said multiple times "Even I had to pay income tax". All working Americans in the system have money deducted. Did you expect to be different in that regard?

no dude, I only said that because I just wanted to show that we did indeed have to pay the taxes, even the little kid. I wasn't complaining or anything, and no I dont expect to be different, I was beating the taxes arguement because I just wanted to show that there is no "paying for your rights"

anyways Latinbabe: if we can make this look like an arranged marriage I think we can pull this off. I dont belive in divorce though, so you better know how to cook.

[LatinBabe]

i loathe divorce. you know what, arranged marriages have less than 1/10 the divorces that open marriage has. wanna know why? because you rarely have the lust stage and you begin to love/respect the person for who they truly are. (forgive me for contradicting my favorite author: Nathaniel Hawthorne)

i just hope you like raman noodles...

i may not get the tax deductions Bush has implemented, but i think over-taxing the successful people is robbery. Go Republicans.

[roughrider]

When has this happened? When has this been done? If it hasn't been done, then what you're spouting is rhetoric, pure and simple....and the usual from you, sadly enough.

Also the argument that the good of the many outweigh the rights of a few.

In terms of racial profiling....terrorists are Arabs and Islamic with the exception of Terry Nicholes and Tim McVeigh. You can spout off the how this isn't fair, but it does make sense.

Also, I've been searched at airports so many times while seeing a guy who looked Arab walk into the plane. I doubt what you're saying is happening.

Perhaps they think that with an Irish name, I'm with the IRA?

I had never talked about racial profiling before, but thank you for putting words into my mouth. The minorty, in this world, must be protected. That is perhaps the most important thing I can stress. If you only support the majority than the minortity become s2nd class citizens. A democracy is to voice the people opinions while still allowing everyone to remain equal.

Why is racial profiling wrong? It is racism. It is government sanctioned racism. Because the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, we should condemn all saudis? Because of the misguided evil doings of a minority of individuals we must then go and persecute the majority? Should we, because terrorists are all Arab men, as you so claim, round them up and put them into camps so as no Arab can ever try to "distbute the freedom that make America great?" Do you remember back to wwII, when we rounded up all the japenese americans and lovingly shoved them into camps because they were of the same race as those who attacked us? We must not stumble blindly forward repeating history. Racial profiling is racism and if you support it you run te risk of it too.

It is not rhetoric, it has been used. It is an incroachment of our civil rights. If I speak out against the government I could be taken away in the middle of the night and never be arrested.THe whole idea of that is Orwellian and creeps me out. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014804/posts
excuse me, how does this relate to terrorism!

The patriot act destroys the greatest part of being american, the liberties given to us. I will never budge an inch on my civil rights to fight some vague shadow we call terrorism. Let our protection be damned, I would rather be dead and free.

[roughrider]

i loathe divorce. you know what, arranged marriages have less than 1/10 the divorces that open marriage has. wanna know why? because you rarely have the lust stage and you begin to love/respect the person for who they truly are. (forgive me for contradicting my favorite author: Nathaniel Hawthorne)

i just hope you like raman noodles...

i may not get the tax deductions Bush has implemented, but i think over-taxing the successful people is robbery. Go Republicans.

what right do rich people have to their money if it was garnarred by abusing and using the lower classes. Bush's tax cuts do NOTHING but try to create a caste system here in America. He is trying to push the economic devide and destroy the middle class. No rich man deserves the money he recieved by exploiting the poor man. anyways what sense does it make for the upper classes to be taxed less (this based on income). the lower classes, while paying less taxes per dollar are paying a greater percentage of their earnings than those proviledge ones ( my family is included) in the upper 5%.

[anjang86]

what right do rich people have to their money if it was garnarred by abusing and using the lower classes. Bush's tax cuts do NOTHING but try to create a caste system here in America. He is trying to push the economic devide and destroy the middle class. No rich man deserves the money he recieved by exploiting the poor man. anyways what sense does it make for the upper classes to be taxed less (this based on income). the lower classes, while paying less taxes per dollar are paying a greater percentage of their earnings than those proviledge ones ( my family is included) in the upper 5%.

I wouldn't say they ALL exploited the rich, did you family exploit the rich?

The arguement is very simple, rich people are rich, they have a lot of money, they dont need more of it from the government so they shouldn't get bigger cuts.

[roughrider]

I wouldn't say they ALL exploited the rich, did you family exploit the rich?

The arguement is very simple, rich people are rich, they have a lot of money, they dont need more of it from the government so they shouldn't get bigger cuts.

perhaps not all. my dad is a lawyer, and I will leave it at that...

[anjang86]

perhaps not all. my dad is a lawyer, and I will leave it at that...

we wont speak of it again...

I think my family is going to be a part of this magical 5% in one or two years... should be interesting to see if I change my mind about things.

[LatinBabe]

The minorty, in this world, must be protected
you are right to a degree. the minority must not be opressed. it doesn't mean to appease the few and screw the common man.
Why is racial profiling wrong? It is racism. It is government sanctioned racism.
true, but being pulled over for a few moments for a back ground check versus hundreds of thousands, if not millions dead americans. or, maybe it is only twenty or so, but are of pre-school age. try that for your conscience. or is it that democrats don't have them? they obviously don't wink at the thought of killing an unborn child. yall give a whole new meaning to "life being a gift, cus your moma coulda taken the pill, kid."
Because the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, we should condemn all saudis? Because of the misguided evil doings of a minority of individuals we must then go and persecute the majority? Should we, because terrorists are all Arab men, as you so claim, round them up and put them into camps so as no Arab can ever try to "distbute the freedom that make America great?"
who ever said to lock them all up, but i see no harm in a short five minute chat. the patriot act is only instigated against someone based on probable cause. true, they don't take the time to get the warrant, but they don't just walk down the terminal tossing shiny new bracelets to every one of arab descent.
Do you remember back to wwII, when we rounded up all the japenese americans and lovingly shoved them into camps because they were of the same race as those who attacked us? We must not stumble blindly forward repeating history.
Can't say that i do, but i have read up on it before. the only blindfold i see is democrats blinding those who COULD potentially be targets into thinking they are being wrongfully opressed. it's a war, i'm not sayin to lock them up, but a little extra attention could/should be paid.
It is not rhetoric, it has been used. It is an incroachment of our civil rights. If I speak out against the government I could be taken away in the middle of the night and never be arrested.
you love confusing the espionage act of WWII and patriot act. unless you threaten the government or have information on terrorists your withholding your not a target.
The patriot act destroys the greatest part of being american, the liberties given to us. I will never budge an inch on my civil rights to fight some vague shadow we call terrorism. Let our protection be damned, I would rather be dead and free.
if that is so, just pull out the .22 because truth be told, your not REALLY free. the government has the right to, at any time, revoke thim if necessary for national security. not to mention you cannot freely 90 on a freeway legallly, you cannot smoke pot, you cannot not wear your seatbelt. you are not at liberty to do everything you want.

[LatinBabe]

what right do rich people have to their money if it was garnarred by abusing and using the lower classes. Bush's tax cuts do NOTHING but try to create a caste system here in America. He is trying to push the economic devide and destroy the middle class. No rich man deserves the money he recieved by exploiting the poor man. anyways what sense does it make for the upper classes to be taxed less (this based on income). the lower classes, while paying less taxes per dollar are paying a greater percentage of their earnings than those proviledge ones ( my family is included) in the upper 5%.

so you say the free market should be abolished? if the poor want more money there are plenty of those "study at home for a better career" things out there. just take some time and educate yourself. also, there is no caste system, and probably never will. you are never bound to a society. if you make no money, move out to the rural area where everything is cheaper and find something that appeases you. besides, unlike the caste system there is a healthy middle class here and that balances things out. the rich pay the most and deserve whatever dollar is saved them. ok, there is a minimum wage, this keeps from exploitation of lower classes. there are community colleges that have a 100% acceptance rate for money a minimum wage family could pay off. there is military service to break the family poverty. if you want to go to school and raise yourself in society, enlist now. if you raise the minimum wage you will kill all small industries who already have a hard time staying out of large corporate grasps; but don't be a marxist and slash payments from the walmart company because they strived hard and succeeded while others didn't.

[LatinBabe]

I wouldn't say they ALL exploited the rich, did you family exploit the rich?

The arguement is very simple, rich people are rich, they have a lot of money, they dont need more of it from the government so they shouldn't get bigger cuts.
you see, your contradicting the american dream right there. here, if your successful you get to reap your success, whether or not you need the money. the idea of the american government is that it is for the people by the people, than if the government is the people than the rich aren't recieving money from the government, but being allowed to keep what they earned, rather than THEY being exploited and bringing about communism.

[roughrider]

you see, your contradicting the american dream right there. here, if your successful you get to reap your success, whether or not you need the money. the idea of the american government is that it is for the people by the people, than if the government is the people than the rich aren't recieving money from the government, but being allowed to keep what they earned, rather than THEY being exploited and bringing about communism.

Ugh, its nto communism. communism is a single dicatator in controll and the lack of political parties. It is a socialist idea. communism and socialism are not the same. And are we still so far behind in politics to use McCarthyistic scare tactics. Communism is dead, China is now for th emost part a socialistc country adn the remaining stronghold of leninistic communism is Cuba

[LatinBabe]

Communism-theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.doesn't mention dictator in there. a dictatorship has a dictator, in communism the main goal is that there is no man in that kind of power.

Socialism-The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. you are describing socialism. not communism.

BTW, it is not a scaretechnique if your very goal is to take from the rich to eliminate the poor, because the rich don't deserve their money anyways. it is communism. anything that isn't free market is socialism or communism and seeing as you think that CEO's don't deserve their and it should all keep people out of pverty, you are in fact professing communism.

true communism in the sense is dead because just as the Articles of the Confederation were insufficient because they didn't provide enough authority, they realized they needed a monarchy of communism so to speak. a.k.a. socialism.

now, there are multiple ways to go about setting up this society. you can quite frankly tell CEO's they are now gonna get squat and the working man is going to be making 3x as much or more; or you can make them THINK they make the money they are used to, but you tax the money out of them and have "stamp day" were all the unemployed eat at red lobster because the rich were forced out of their money by the communistic goals of the "modern: IRS.

[Longest]

doesn't mention dictator in there. a dictatorship has a dictator, in communism the main goal is that there is no man in that kind of power.

you are describing socialism. not communism.

BTW, it is not a scaretechnique if your very goal is to take from the rich to eliminate the poor, because the rich don't deserve their money anyways. it is communism. anything that isn't free market is socialism or communism and seeing as you think that CEO's don't deserve their and it should all keep people out of pverty, you are in fact professing communism.

true communism in the sense is dead because just as the Articles of the Confederation were insufficient because they didn't provide enough authority, they realized they needed a monarchy of communism so to speak. a.k.a. socialism.

now, there are multiple ways to go about setting up this society. you can quite frankly tell CEO's they are now gonna get squat and the working man is going to be making 3x as much or more; or you can make them THINK they make the money they are used to, but you tax the money out of them and have "stamp day" were all the unemployed eat at red lobster because the rich were forced out of their money by the communistic goals of the "modern: IRS.

Excellent post Katy, you beat me to it.

It's important to note that communism is both an economic AND political system (as well as, some would say, the state religion) while socialism describes only the economic system.

Dan

[Longest]

if that is so, just pull out the .22 because truth be told, your not REALLY free. the government has the right to, at any time, revoke thim if necessary for national security. not to mention you cannot freely 90 on a freeway legallly, you cannot smoke pot, you cannot not wear your seatbelt. you are not at liberty to do everything you want.

Which demonstrates the true extent of the pervasiveness of our "limited" government and why I have become a libertarian. None of the things you listed get in the way of anyone else's rights and should therefore, according to libertarian philosophy, be legal. Both major parties believe people lack the intelligence to make their own choices regarding what's safe for them and what's not, as well as lacking the intelligence to make their own decisions about their own money (hence taxes).

Dan

[Longest]

what right do rich people have to their money if it was garnarred by abusing and using the lower classes. Bush's tax cuts do NOTHING but try to create a caste system here in America. He is trying to push the economic devide and destroy the middle class. No rich man deserves the money he recieved by exploiting the poor man. anyways what sense does it make for the upper classes to be taxed less (this based on income). the lower classes, while paying less taxes per dollar are paying a greater percentage of their earnings than those proviledge ones ( my family is included) in the upper 5%.

I like the misconception you base this on that all "rich" people got that way by abusing other people. That is simply not true. Capitalism, the free market, separates those that offer a valued good or service at a competitive price from those that do not. Consumers make the choices on what they want, a "vote", if you will. To produce the good or service, employees contract with the employer to provide labor at a certain wage. If they do not like the terms of the contract, they are always free to look elsewhere. They are free to look elsewhere WHILE employed. They are free to gain more skills and knowledge to further them on the path of advancement. So please, spare us the broken heart rigamarole about the evils of the upper class who are literally providing jobs for everyone else. What are these "jobs" Bush and Kerry bicker about? They are jobs created by capitalists who are offering valued goods and services that consumers are wanting in higher and higher demand. If you want more jobs, more capitalists = more jobs. More capital defines the level of productivity in an economy, not more labor. I suggest reading Ludwig von Mises if you do not believe me.

Dan

[Longest]

I wouldn't say they ALL exploited the rich, did you family exploit the rich?

The arguement is very simple, rich people are rich, they have a lot of money, they dont need more of it from the government so they shouldn't get bigger cuts.

That's theft. They made the money legally but a 3rd party is deciding they do not have a right to it. "Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard goes into it in far more detail then I can here. There's no proof the government knows better how to spend the money or that they're more effective at using it. A capitalist is going to use the money to expand which creates more jobs. It's the magical upward spiral Bush/Kerry would have you believe in. At least in Bush's case, it's a tax rebate for consumers that will actually inspire the economy, not increased government spending which hasn't been proven to have these results. If you want citations, I can furnish them.

At least you didn't buy Tom's argument that all rich people exploited poor people to achieve what they did.

Dan

[LatinBabe]

At least you didn't buy Tom's argument that all rich people exploited poor people to achieve what they did.

Dan

Dan, it would take me a whole essay to say what you did in a short paragragh. :clap:

but wait, there is a case of the rich exploiting the poor in the US in the last century. During the Depression. 50% unemplyment meant that the rich could get workers to work for whatever pay in whatever condtions they so desired. other than that, no.

[Longest]

Dan, it would take me a whole essay to say what you did in a short paragragh. :clap:

but wait, there is a case of the rich exploiting the poor in the US in the last century. During the Depression. 50% unemplyment meant that the rich could get workers to work for whatever pay in whatever condtions they so desired. other than that, no.

I'm not quite sure what bringing up the depression does to this discussion. You are obvoiusly historically right but I only ask in terms of relevance to today. We are not in a depression and odds are heavily against that happening again. Economists have come out in favor of the same as I have mentioned, letting capitalists continue to run the free market, creating new products and thereby jobs which helps everyone get back on their feet. You have to crawl before you can walk coming out of a depression, ANY employment would seem preferable to standing in weeklong bread lines. Another ignored facet of Soviet communism tho, people still didn't have anything to eat and that seemed a-okay cuz "everyone is equal, equally screwed."

Dan

[LatinBabe]

I was just showing there was factual basis on roughriders claim, but it was even more out-dated than Bush's false national security threat which got everyone riled up.

Why should these rights that we hold, these unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, not be given to someone because they do not belong to our country.

First of all, you connected God and Politics, and your a democrat? Donald Trump will see you now.

Well, I will give you an example that a democrat should understand. When these illegal immigrants come here, what do they do? they mow lawns, they clean houses, they work at fast food restuarants...etc. All of these are jobs that could lower the unemplyment rate of citizens, weaken the economy more, and then, of course, we would have to tax the rich some more to make sure they have had all their vaccinations, they are well pampered, they live a relatively happy life. you know this has always been a major problem. after WWI when soldiers cam back from the war many of their jobs were taken by immigrants from mexico. this, of course, raised unemployment alot and to make a living more and more people sook the novelty of the stock market. well, when it crashed all hell broke loose and I'm sure you've read enough John Steinbeck to know life sucked. Heck, just go talk to your grandma/pa. When WWII came around it opened a bejeezus amount of jobs and, of course, the mexican immigrants didn't serve in the War and took more and more jobs. this time when they came home they HAD to instigate operation wetback to remove them and give american workers jobs. and if i'm not mistaken the Democrats spearheaded the operation, not to mention the insane criminally cruel treatment they used to remove mexicans and to keep them out.
wow, i went off on a tangent, but do you get my illustration? you cannot go around preaching job security for the american worker and still place emphasis on bringing more immigrants here. it just doesn't play out.

you know what, I'm lost and cannot remember my main goal now. oh yeah.

We go to Iraq to impose freedom and liberty and we show a fine example of this great humanistic idea by toturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garaib
We went to Iraq to find weapons, now we are there to make a stable platform in which to counter terrorism with and to open the middle-east to better foreign trade. now, i don't like the idea of torturing anybody, but this is war and ____ hits the fan. these are the same people afterall who decapatated american engineers and cut the hands off their own people. maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but crying doesn't get stuff done either.

[roughrider]

I like the misconception you base this on that all "rich" people got that way by abusing other people. That is simply not true. Capitalism, the free market, separates those that offer a valued good or service at a competitive price from those that do not. Consumers make the choices on what they want, a "vote", if you will. To produce the good or service, employees contract with the employer to provide labor at a certain wage. If they do not like the terms of the contract, they are always free to look elsewhere. They are free to look elsewhere WHILE employed. They are free to gain more skills and knowledge to further them on the path of advancement. So please, spare us the broken heart rigamarole about the evils of the upper class who are literally providing jobs for everyone else. What are these "jobs" Bush and Kerry bicker about? They are jobs created by capitalists who are offering valued goods and services that consumers are wanting in higher and higher demand. If you want more jobs, more capitalists = more jobs. More capital defines the level of productivity in an economy, not more labor. I suggest reading Ludwig von Mises if you do not believe me.

Dan

I was wrong to use the word all in my discription. i would change it to most but that is it. the rich get to where they are by exploiting minimum wage, lowering healthcare benefits and the like. Wal-mart makes absurd amounts of money because they monopolize the local economies and shut down all competition. Once competition has been shut down they are free to weild their power at will. Without a competitor Wal-Mart is given full reign to capatilize upon the lack of job opportunities. They are able to pay their employs crap because there is not a competitor in the market place that would challenge them with better wages. The unfortunate people, recieving the meager funds from their paycheck, are then forced to shop at wal-mart because it is the only place they can afford. they in turn enslave themselves. To the community that wal-mart hit, nothing good can come from it. to the local economy no good can come from it. People get jobs, from these jobs they cant afford to better themselves and find another higher paying job as you so claim. The people of the community are stripped of their economic possiblities while the managers, and uppermanagement thrive. The company, because it pays poorely, shows a greater profit margin which in turn rewards the investors of the company. These men at the top remain at the top, the only matter of importance to them is the profit margin. the question that must be posed is whether this is good for the economy. wal-Mart shows incredible profit margins and a new store opens every 20 minutes or so and in most circles that is a good thing for the economy-thriving business employing vast numbers of people. however you must also contemplate the more localized aspects. The jobs created are coming from another company losing money because of wal-mart. Instead of mom and pop stores paying competitive wages while the prices on the shelves arnt the lowest are run out of business and replaced by these conglomorates (sp?). I feel the negative aspects of this far outweigh the benefits of a quater of a point for the stock market. Face it, companies have no moral obligation. the only concern of them, by nature, is profit. anything that stands in the way must go. this idea scares the bejebus outa me. We are allowing fewer companies to controll greater portions of our lives.

to socialism. Marxist philosophies are only expressed by the most radical of the groups. modern socialism revolves around the ideas of the Fabians

[V-cut]

the rich get to where they are by exploiting minimum wage, lowering healthcare benefits and the like... ...The jobs created are coming from another company losing money because of wal-mart. Instead of mom and pop stores paying competitive wages while the prices on the shelves arnt the lowest are run out of business and replaced by these conglomorates (sp?).
if you raise the minimum wage to get these people out of poverty, all small buisnesess will fail because they cannot afford to pay their employees more than they currently do. it is a simple fact.
if your born in a poor family, actually try during school. get into a college and break the chain. you hear about it all the time. the thing that keeps many of the poor in poverty is that they seek things that bring temporary relief rather than actually fixing the problem. you will notice that the poor consume the most slcohol, smoke the most cigs, do the most drugs, spend the most time at beuaty saloons and so forth. if they want out all they have to do is stop and put that money towards education and bettering themselves. the minimum wage has been sat at a level that if a person wants to succeed, it is possible. so they can't afford harvord, or princeton, but a community college that has 100% acceptance rate will do perfectly fineif the applicant applies himself/herself.
The unfortunate people, recieving the meager funds from their paycheck, are then forced to shop at wal-mart because it is the only place they can afford. they in turn enslave themselves. wrong, they enslave themselves with the above actions.Face it, companies have no moral obligation. and who ever said they had to. as long as they meet minimum wage and offer safe working conditions they have the right to exercise how they want.People get jobs, from these jobs they cant afford to better themselves and find another higher paying job as you so claim wrong, the minimal wage was set a point of exceptable living conditions with enough on the side to spend (although little) on recreation. it is the bums who are unwilling to sacrifice their entertainment for bettering themselves who cannot better themselves.To the community that wal-mart hit, nothing good can come from it. always low prices, always walmart. works for me. They are able to pay their employs crap because there is not a competitor in the market place that would challenge them with better wages. they can afford to pay employees crap cus we are the ones who shopped from them and made them successful. if your gonna point fingers, always start at yourself. show some humility and take responsibility for your actions. Wal-mart makes absurd amounts of money because they monopolize the local economies and shut down all competition. Once competition has been shut down they are free to weild their power at will. once again... it's all our fault. and all i see is "always low prices, always walmart". if mom and pop had done the same thing would you be belly aching? yeah, because walmart started as a mom and pop store that knew people loved low prices.this idea scares the bejebus outa me. then move to canada.

[anjang86]

I'm not saying tax them more, because I agree that is "theft." I'm saying dont tax them less just because they are rich.

And if rich people allready lived the American dream and became successfull then theres no reason for the government to give them extra money.

[TheKOB]

what right do rich people have to their money if it was garnarred by abusing and using the lower classes. Bush's tax cuts do NOTHING but try to create a caste system here in America. He is trying to push the economic devide and destroy the middle class. No rich man deserves the money he recieved by exploiting the poor man. anyways what sense does it make for the upper classes to be taxed less (this based on income). the lower classes, while paying less taxes per dollar are paying a greater percentage of their earnings than those proviledge ones ( my family is included) in the upper 5%.

Little bit of class warfare, eh Rough? Not all rich people are tycoons. Either no one gets it but you and your socialist buddies on the fringe of society, or there IS no caste system. Which one's more likely?

In a caste system, one can't move between classes. Definitely not true here in America.

Nothing like a rich kid with no experience in the real world who feels guilty...and no, college doesn't count.

[TheKOB]

I had never talked about racial profiling before, but thank you for putting words into my mouth. The minorty, in this world, must be protected. That is perhaps the most important thing I can stress. If you only support the majority than the minortity become s2nd class citizens. A democracy is to voice the people opinions while still allowing everyone to remain equal.

This is your problem. You see everything as divisions....minorities and white people, lower class and upper. I see the society as complete. A class struggle isn't needed to accomplish this. Also, no one is marching them off to concentration camps by any means.

Why is racial profiling wrong? It is racism. It is government sanctioned racism. Because the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, we should condemn all saudis? Because of the misguided evil doings of a minority of individuals we must then go and persecute the majority? Should we, because terrorists are all Arab men, as you so claim, round them up and put them into camps so as no Arab can ever try to "distbute the freedom that make America great?" Do you remember back to wwII, when we rounded up all the japenese americans and lovingly shoved them into camps because they were of the same race as those who attacked us? We must not stumble blindly forward repeating history. Racial profiling is racism and if you support it you run te risk of it too.

It's not racism...it's being smart. Just because it uses race as a tool doesn't mean it's bad. Also, they wouldn't use it if it didn't work. Perhaps we should stop identifying criminals by race, wouldn't that be great? Instead of a witness using complextion as an identifying characteristic, let's just identify them based on personality characteristics, eh? I think that our definitions of racial profiling are different anyways.

Once again, you stretch and misrepresent my words. There's a definite difference between the japanese concentration camps and racial profiling. If there wasn't, based solely on the prison population, everyone in the lower class and everyone who was black would be in prison.

It is not rhetoric, it has been used. It is an incroachment of our civil rights. If I speak out against the government I could be taken away in the middle of the night and never be arrested.THe whole idea of that is Orwellian and creeps me out. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014804/posts
excuse me, how does this relate to terrorism!

first "proof"
"The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the PATRIOT Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months."

"Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers."

Tragic indeed

The other "proof" you posted exhibited another case of law enforcement using the Patriot act to catch criminals who had done something wrong. Please enlighten me. Catching Criminals=Bad?!?

The patriot act destroys the greatest part of being american, the liberties given to us. I will never budge an inch on my civil rights to fight some vague shadow we call terrorism. Let our protection be damned, I would rather be dead and free.

I wish you said that Sept 10th, 2001. Then in a day you'd realize how stupid that sounds. Also, I'm not standing in your way.

Vague Shadow? nominate that for the dumbest thing said on the boards.

if you like criminals, repeal the patriot act. It's doing nothing but bad for them!

[TheKOB]

I'm not saying tax them more, because I agree that is "theft." I'm saying dont tax them less just because they are rich.

And if rich people allready lived the American dream and became successfull then theres no reason for the government to give them extra money.

Tax them less how? are you talking percentage or amouth?

Also, the government isn't "giving" them extra money. The government would be taking less of the money that the successful earned.

Kudos and huzzah to V-cut, Katy, and Dan for your excellent posts. Scholars and gentlemen/woman all. I remember the communism/socialism from GINT class. Socialism was defined as a transition period to true Communism.

[TheKOB]

I was wrong to use the word all in my discription. i would change it to most but that is it. the rich get to where they are by exploiting minimum wage, lowering healthcare benefits and the like.

Let me be the first to welcome to you the age of post industrialization. Hopefully your views of the current society and that of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s will be different.

Wal-mart makes absurd amounts of money because they monopolize the local economies and shut down all competition. Once competition has been shut down they are free to weild their power at will. Without a competitor Wal-Mart is given full reign to capatilize upon the lack of job opportunities. They are able to pay their employs crap because there is not a competitor in the market place that would challenge them with better wages. The unfortunate people, recieving the meager funds from their paycheck, are then forced to shop at wal-mart because it is the only place they can afford. they in turn enslave themselves. To the community that wal-mart hit, nothing good can come from it. to the local economy no good can come from it. People get jobs, from these jobs they cant afford to better themselves and find another higher paying job as you so claim. The people of the community are stripped of their economic possiblities while the managers, and uppermanagement thrive. The company, because it pays poorely, shows a greater profit margin which in turn rewards the investors of the company. These men at the top remain at the top, the only matter of importance to them is the profit margin. the question that must be posed is whether this is good for the economy. wal-Mart shows incredible profit margins and a new store opens every 20 minutes or so and in most circles that is a good thing for the economy-thriving business employing vast numbers of people.

So far off base. First off, as was already mentioned, WalMart grew from a mom-and-pop operation. They built up a large war chest by opening a large one stop shop in small communities not entered into by Kmart and their other rivals. Then they could afford to compete directly with them.

Where are these communities of Wal-Mart and nothing else? They don’t lower wages and hike prices once they get the upper hand. They don’t make it a point to drive out mom and pop stores. I’d phrase it another way, the small stores were over charging, not Wal-Mart is undercharging. Wal-Mart makes profit by dealing in large quantities, the same as any supermarket. They’ve built their stores around low prices. Also, they pay their empolyee’s crap? Management and Upper Management profits? Good thing you can work your way up in this society. Also, if you think wal mart is doing so well, feel free to invest in them. Unlike some companies, you can share in their profits, and you don’t have to be rich to do it. It’s never Wal-Mart or nothing.

however you must also contemplate the more localized aspects. The jobs created are coming from another company losing money because of wal-mart. Instead of mom and pop stores paying competitive wages while the prices on the shelves arnt the lowest are run out of business and replaced by these conglomorates (sp?). I feel the negative aspects of this far outweigh the benefits of a quater of a point for the stock market. Face it, companies have no moral obligation. the only concern of them, by nature, is profit. anything that stands in the way must go. this idea scares the bejebus outa me. We are allowing fewer companies to controll greater portions of our lives.

I doubt that wal mart pays it’s employees less than the mom and pop stores. Often, they’re operated by just mom and pop. Speaking of moral obligation, what is the moral obligation of any other business, small or large? Making money is what any business is concerned with, first and foremost.

If you have ever taken any sort of business class, you’d know that there are advantages to being a small company and advantages to being a large company. They don’t even out, though. Guess who has the advantage? The small companies! Small cap stocks (small companies) always outperform medium cap and large cap stocks. Always. That’s one of the anomalies of the stock market.

Marxist philosophies are only expressed by the most radical of the groups. modern socialism revolves around the ideas of the Fabians

Oh, so kinda like Tony Blair, who’s a member of the Labour Party and a Fabian?

“Since the 1997 general election there have been around 200 Fabian MPs in the Commons, amongst who number nearly the entire Cabinet, including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Clare Short.”

Also, don’t tell China that “modern socialism” ideas revolve around the Fabians. You’ll insult their dear Mao and they might get peeved and beat you with their little red books.

[Frndlefire]

They don’t make it a point to drive out mom and pop stores. walmart has lost a very large number of predatory prcing lawsuits. This means that they lower prices below what local competition can afford to maintain and when local competition invariably collapses from trying to compete, or lack of sales, Walmart then raises their prices again. It is illegal.

we go to Iraq to impose freedom and liberty and we show a fine example of this great humanistic idea by toturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garaib No condoning it, but some would argue that it is part of human nature. Please read:http://www.prisonexp.org/ It is extremely relevant to this situation and only got marginal coverage by the media. It is also really intereasting no matter how you stand on anything else.

[TheKOB]

walmart has lost a very large number of predatory prcing lawsuits. This means that they lower prices below what local competition can afford to maintain and when local competition invariably collapses from trying to compete, or lack of sales, Walmart then raises their prices again. It is illegal.

please provide a resource.


No condoning it, but some would argue that it is part of human nature. Please read:http://www.prisonexp.org/ It is extremely relevant to this situation and only got marginal coverage by the media. It is also really intereasting no matter how you stand on anything else.

What you were responding to definitely wasn't written by me...or I might be getting old. Please double check.

[Frndlefire]

please provide a resource. ok, foot in my mouth. I don't have any sources at the moment, but I will try and get on that. Back in my home town they were trying to put in a superwalmart and a bunch of people were protesting it. They handed out pamphlets which listed a number of cases of predatory pricing. blah blah blah.

What you were responding to definitely wasn't written by me...or I might be getting old. Please double check. fixed, I was copying and pasting the vB code and forgot to change the name

[TheKOB]

ok, foot in my mouth. I don't have any sources at the moment, but I will try and get on that. Back in my home town they were trying to put in a superwalmart and a bunch of people were protesting it. They handed out pamphlets which listed a number of cases of predatory pricing. blah blah blah.

fixed, I was copying and pasting the vB code and forgot to change the name

no worries. I just don't think Wal Mart would make corporate policy to drive out the mom and pop stores. They obviously don't need to worry about them. Their competition are stores like KMart (who they're grinding into the dust) and now supermarkets.

I do agree that some of walmart's practices are unethical, but they don't go after mom and pop stores. The only unethical (but not illegal) practices they do are "against" the businesses that supply them. Basically, they agree with a vendor to buy shorts from them for a specific price for a specific period of time. Walmart is huge, so they buy a lot of shorts. At the end of the contract, Walmart negotiates the price down a bunch. The other business has to comply. Since Walmart is so huge, it probably represents a large percent of their sales. You can't increase and decrease factory volume that easily....factories can't be bought and sold, and workers can't be fired and hired at a drop of the hat the way you would think was possible from playing Monopoly. That's unethical to a degree, but not illegal.