And that is the problem.Jay wrote:
Shareholders are the owners.
If the majority of the public in those states agrees with the position, why do you care? That's the system working. Or is it just because YOU don't agree with it?Macbeth wrote:
Again it's not about forcing anyone to live in a certain way. It's about making sure people who want to live a certain way can regardless of what the majority believes. I believe every human being has total authority to do as they please with their bodies. A law removing restrictions on what people can do with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm anyone else isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's not legislating social norms, it's protecting human rights.
The President enforces the law and rulings of the SCOTUS. The DOJ can very well at least try to legally block some of the bills, as it does with some of the immigration stuff, along the lines of making sure RvW isn't subverted. The admin can also use some of that soft power of theirs and try to sway public opinion against such bills. But they have done neither.
Companies become profitable by screwing its workers and its customers and everyone else that comes between them and a buck. Customer service is indeed very important, but screwing the customer is all too easy when you're the only provider of a product or service and overprive the fuck out of it.Jay wrote:
How is it that you think a company becomes profitable? By screwing the customer? Customers only take so much before they rebel and go to a competitor. Good customer service is far more important than you seem to credit.
Touché newbie but you know what I mean right?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I get it. A government's agenda should be to lose money.
It all makes sense now.
Sure do.oug wrote:
Touché newbie but you know what I mean right?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I get it. A government's agenda should be to lose money.
It all makes sense now.
btw seriously, our government did exactly that all these years! They tried - and succeeded - in making money off of us...
It could make some. A president can appoint people to a lot of important positions and put his signature on critical documents.cpt.fass1 wrote:
There's no reason to vote for anyone. It's not going to make a difffernce.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2011-10-08 18:43:09)
Let's stop the "War on poverty" while we're at it. We've spent ~$15.9 trillion since Johnson declared "war" on poverty, and have realized a whopping 2% improvement in the overall level of poverty in this country. So what's the answer? Throw more money at the problem.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Also we need to stop Wars on, I think we spent 15billion on the war on drugs last year when it's only a 3 billion dollar a year industry? Why not just save 12 billion and buy all the drugs.
I'll use Newark NJ as an example.. If we pulled out all of the Government funding out of that shit hole of a town, the cost of living would drop and the economy would improve. That money we has the state of New Jersey are dumping in there plus federal isn't going to the poor it's just inflating the values and keeping them poor.
Shame none of them are running...Macbeth wrote:
instead of a social moderate Repub?
Lets stop "wars" on all abstract concepts.FEOS wrote:
Let's stop the "War on poverty" while we're at it. We've spent ~$15.9 trillion since Johnson declared "war" on poverty, and have realized a whopping 2% improvement in the overall level of poverty in this country. So what's the answer? Throw more money at the problem.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Also we need to stop Wars on, I think we spent 15billion on the war on drugs last year when it's only a 3 billion dollar a year industry? Why not just save 12 billion and buy all the drugs.
I'll use Newark NJ as an example.. If we pulled out all of the Government funding out of that shit hole of a town, the cost of living would drop and the economy would improve. That money we has the state of New Jersey are dumping in there plus federal isn't going to the poor it's just inflating the values and keeping them poor.
That sounds remarkably like the definition of insanity. But then again, you could apply that to the approach taken with education in this country, or any number of other programs run by the government: "Spending gobs of money on the problem didn't fix it? Let's spend more!"
What do you think of the war on drugs?FEOS wrote:
Let's stop the "War on poverty" while we're at it. We've spent ~$15.9 trillion since Johnson declared "war" on poverty, and have realized a whopping 2% improvement in the overall level of poverty in this country. So what's the answer? Throw more money at the problem.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Also we need to stop Wars on, I think we spent 15billion on the war on drugs last year when it's only a 3 billion dollar a year industry? Why not just save 12 billion and buy all the drugs.
I'll use Newark NJ as an example.. If we pulled out all of the Government funding out of that shit hole of a town, the cost of living would drop and the economy would improve. That money we has the state of New Jersey are dumping in there plus federal isn't going to the poor it's just inflating the values and keeping them poor.
That sounds remarkably like the definition of insanity. But then again, you could apply that to the approach taken with education in this country, or any number of other programs run by the government: "Spending gobs of money on the problem didn't fix it? Let's spend more!"
Last edited by Spearhead (2011-10-08 23:36:47)
thank you, shifty, that was moving and beautiful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
You're mad abortions are hard to get?
Dang you need a conscience son...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
Have you polled every shareholder? Personally, I like companies with long term growth. Most people do.rdx-fx wrote:
And that is the problem.Jay wrote:
Shareholders are the owners.
They are interested in their short-term share prices only.
Long term health of the company doesn't matter, employee conditions don't matter, customer satisfaction doesn't matter, company reputation doesn't matter.
It is backwards.
It should be "Build a quality product, profits will follow".
It will never be "maximize profit, a quality product will follow"
How cynical. I feel bad for you if that's the way you view the world. I've never seen my employers as the enemy.oug wrote:
Companies become profitable by screwing its workers and its customers and everyone else that comes between them and a buck. Customer service is indeed very important, but screwing the customer is all too easy when you're the only provider of a product or service and overprive the fuck out of it.Jay wrote:
How is it that you think a company becomes profitable? By screwing the customer? Customers only take so much before they rebel and go to a competitor. Good customer service is far more important than you seem to credit.
Interesting talk I had with a CEO recently: He said "you know, we could be 5 times bigger as a company but that would mean huge problems with the workers because they could form a union and put pressure on us. Instead we made 4 smaller companies, each not employing enough people for them to make a union" (under the country laws in which they operate - that's Germany btw). So now that guy can pretty much sack anyone he wants whenever it suits him and not pay a dime in compensation. And you know what? That's why he's getting paid so much - to come up with all that shit and save money whatever the cost. And rdx wants that guy to run his country? Really?Touché newbie but you know what I mean right?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I get it. A government's agenda should be to lose money.
It all makes sense now.
btw seriously, our government did exactly that all these years! They tried - and succeeded - in making money off of us...
Depends, I worked in a company where the plan was to rape the investors, maximise apparent profits and run before anyone found out.Jay wrote:
Have you polled every shareholder? Personally, I like companies with long term growth. Most people do.rdx-fx wrote:
And that is the problem.Jay wrote:
Shareholders are the owners.
They are interested in their short-term share prices only.
Long term health of the company doesn't matter, employee conditions don't matter, customer satisfaction doesn't matter, company reputation doesn't matter.
It is backwards.
It should be "Build a quality product, profits will follow".
It will never be "maximize profit, a quality product will follow"
You have no idea what you are talking about.
In manufacturing, or any company with high capital costs, long term planning is more of a necessity. Most everyone wants to see their company do well and that means long term health. Employees aren't willingly going to run their company into the ground because it means they will be out of work.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, I worked in a company where the plan was to rape the investors, maximise apparent profits and run before anyone found out.Jay wrote:
Have you polled every shareholder? Personally, I like companies with long term growth. Most people do.rdx-fx wrote:
And that is the problem.
They are interested in their short-term share prices only.
Long term health of the company doesn't matter, employee conditions don't matter, customer satisfaction doesn't matter, company reputation doesn't matter.
It is backwards.
It should be "Build a quality product, profits will follow".
It will never be "maximize profit, a quality product will follow"
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I've not seen many companies which have real long term plans, beyond a year or two.
Last edited by Jay (2011-10-09 05:08:46)
There are quite a few of the latter actually, the kind Jay pointed out. But long term planning doesn't necessarily translate to better working conditions or customer care.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, I worked in a company where the plan was to rape the investors, maximise apparent profits and run before anyone found out.
I've not seen many companies which have real long term plans, beyond a year or two.
Cynical? How could I not be? You should see how cynical that CEO I told you about was when he said it was his job to make sure people got fired without a compensation. If his job description was to murder babies on the street I bet he'd do it with that same calm and empty face.Jay wrote:
How cynical. I feel bad for you if that's the way you view the world. I've never seen my employers as the enemy.
No. You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about.Jay wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Self-righteous douchebaggery of some guy trying to impose his own sense of moral conscience on others, then tells them that they're going to hell for not following the commandments of his god. Ridiculous film, pure simple-minded ass gravy. He even goes on to compare nazi concentration camps to abortion clinics. What's more is that you're a huge hypocrite. This film is centered around the idea that human life or at the very least innocent human life, is sacred. You want to join the military, you support the wars in Afghanistan / Iraq. Innocent people die in these conflicts, given you ever join the military there's a chance innocent people might die by your hands, if not you still applaud the death of others. Guess you're going straight to hell as well.-Sh1fty- wrote:
You're mad abortions are hard to get?
Dang you need a conscience son...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
