Depends who sets up the company, some people want to build successful companies and some want to earn a quick buck and scram.Dilbert_X wrote:
It was a US registered company.
Its not the rule, but I've read enough annual reports and so on to see most executives are focused on their next set of bonuses and not much else.
Your argument applies to government subsidies writ large. They skew reality.cpt.fass1 wrote:
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.
already addressed the war on poverty. It doesn't help the people it intends to, all it does is make those who don't want to be on the governments dollars go up.
Oh, I agree. I've stated plenty of times in other threads that the war on drugs has never been treated as a war, and thus has failed by that measure. Nomenclature aside, there has been significant effort at poppy eradication in Afghanistan...which has caused some problems with the overall effort there.Spearhead wrote:
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!"
Sending American citizens to prison (spending tax dollars too) for possessing ridiculously minimal amounts of pot while our allies in Afghanistan contribute to 90% of the worlds opium (aka heroin). Yup seems consistent to me.
Because I believe people have rights that supersede temporal law and the the majority of people's view. I don't think 'that's how the system works' is a good justification for little more than tyranny of the majority.FEOS wrote:
If the majority of the public in those states agrees with the position, why do you care? That's the system working.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.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-10-09 08:49:45)
How so?FEOS wrote:
Your argument applies to government subsidies writ large. They skew reality.cpt.fass1 wrote:
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.
already addressed the war on poverty. It doesn't help the people it intends to, all it does is make those who don't want to be on the governments dollars go up.
Both sides do it. It's not like Obama and the Democrats are up there standing up for individual rights. I see no difference between the two sides. One wants to ban trans fats, cigarettes, salt, corn syrup, guns, religious expression, etc and the other wants to ban abortion. The former affects me a helluva lot more than the latter.Macbeth wrote:
Because I believe people have rights that supersede temporal law and the the majority of people's view. I don't think 'that's how the system works' is a good justification for little more than tyranny of the majority.FEOS wrote:
If the majority of the public in those states agrees with the position, why do you care? That's the system working.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.
Last edited by Jay (2011-10-09 09:13:18)
Correct. You want to ban the owners from the discussion and replace them with some democratic committee that would surely have the best interest of the company in mind. Why not have the workers set their own wages? Would you expect them to have a longer view than the corporate leadership does in regards to the best interest of the company? Good luck with that.rdx-fx wrote:
No. You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about.Jay wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There's no effective national movement against abortion. There are many pushes for it at the state level, but Roe v Wade is not in any danger of being overturned at the federal level.Macbeth wrote:
Your little regional ban trans fat and cigarettes thing isn't anywhere near the national movements against things like abortion. There is just no equivalency. Social conservationism is much more active and widespread than your little hipster NYC actions.
It's called democracy. You got a better concept of governance? Love to hear it.Macbeth wrote:
Because I believe people have rights that supersede temporal law and the the majority of people's view. I don't think 'that's how the system works' is a good justification for little more than tyranny of the majority.FEOS wrote:
If the majority of the public in those states agrees with the position, why do you care? That's the system working.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.
Government subsidies prop up the value/cost of a given commodity, skewing the true cost/value upward. It even happened with the housing boom...who do you think subsidized all those loans? Fannie and Freddie...government organizations.cpt.fass1 wrote:
How so?FEOS wrote:
Your argument applies to government subsidies writ large. They skew reality.cpt.fass1 wrote:
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.
already addressed the war on poverty. It doesn't help the people it intends to, all it does is make those who don't want to be on the governments dollars go up.
Oh, so it's a matter of organization for you then. It really bothers you that they protest at abortion clinics? Why do you care if they make it more difficult to get an abortion in Alabama? You live in New Jersey. Is New Jersey in danger of banning abortion? No? Ok then.Macbeth wrote:
I never said it was. I said there is national movement against abortion. They work at a state level but coordinate across the entire national sphere.
http://prolifeaction.org/
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://www.lifenews.com/
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/
I can post a dozen more. RvW isn't worth the paper it's printed on if at the state level abortion is made more difficult to get because of layers of needless bureaucracy and arbitrary regulations. Now if you can find multiple organizations that coordinate across the U.S. with the sole purpose of getting corn syrup removed or more difficult to receive then I'll be surprised.
When people begin to lobby Congress, it automatically becomes national. All those "non-national" issues lobby Congress for laws in favor of their cause. They also work at the state level, where they have had more success. Just like the anti-abortion movement, strangely enough...Macbeth wrote:
I never said it was. I said there is national movement against abortion. They work at a state level but coordinate across the entire national sphere.
http://prolifeaction.org/
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://www.lifenews.com/
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/
I can post a dozen more. RvW isn't worth the paper it's printed on if at the state level abortion is made more difficult to get because of layers of needless bureaucracy and arbitrary regulations. Now if you can find multiple organizations that coordinate across the U.S. with the sole purpose of getting corn syrup removed or more difficult to receive then I'll be surprised.
Germany wasn't a democracy.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
Like I said. I value a persons right to decide the course of their own bodies. Anything that prevents that is an attack on the entire notion of human liberty above the state.Jay wrote:
Oh, so it's a matter of organization for you then. It really bothers you that they protest at abortion clinics? Why do you care if they make it more difficult to get an abortion in Alabama? You live in New Jersey. Is New Jersey in danger of banning abortion? No? Ok then.Macbeth wrote:
I never said it was. I said there is national movement against abortion. They work at a state level but coordinate across the entire national sphere.
http://prolifeaction.org/
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://www.lifenews.com/
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/
I can post a dozen more. RvW isn't worth the paper it's printed on if at the state level abortion is made more difficult to get because of layers of needless bureaucracy and arbitrary regulations. Now if you can find multiple organizations that coordinate across the U.S. with the sole purpose of getting corn syrup removed or more difficult to receive then I'll be surprised.
You're doing the exact same thing they are: sticking your nose in and voicing your opinion on something that doesn't concern you out of some moral obligation.
Germany being a democracy during the holocaust wasn't point. It's the fact that your justification of the how things currently are fits in exactly with the example of the Holocaust approval. "If people agree with it, the system is working!"FEOS wrote:
Germany wasn't a democracy.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
And you still haven't offered a better form of governance.
I value the rule of law and democratic governance.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-10-09 09:57:54)
Germany being a democracy during the Holocaust is entirely the point. You're basing your presumption on the fact that the people would approve of a given course of action by their government, and thus approve of the actions of their elected officials, not take the action of voting them out of office for acting against the will of the people.Macbeth wrote:
Germany being a democracy during the holocaust wasn't point. It's the fact that your justification of the how things currently are fits in exactly with the example of the Holocaust approval. "If people agree with it, the system is working!"FEOS wrote:
Germany wasn't a democracy.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
And you still haven't offered a better form of governance.
I value the rule of law and democratic governance.
You seem to have a problem with majority rule, which is the basis of the democratic system...or at least, democratic rule that is in contrast with your views.Macbeth wrote:
I never claimed to want to tear down the entire democratic system we have so why would I offer a new system?
Again, I never said that. Kindly point to where I did. You are making the assumption that abortion is an inherent human right. That is the core of the debate, isn't it? If it is a purely medical issue, then it is. If it isn't a purely medical issue (the position that the act kills another human being), then it isn't.Macbeth wrote:
Rule of law and democratic governance supersede human rights. Nice to know. That's a nice position. 'Violating human rights is fine as long as the law doing it is respected by all parties and agreed to by at least 51% of active participants'. Solid philosophical footing....democracy for democracies sake.
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
how do you feel about capital punishment?Jay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.
I don't feel you have the right to tell people what to do with their body.Jay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
No innocent life is involved.13urnzz wrote:
how do you feel about capital punishment?Jay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.
Did I say anything about forcing conformity to my viewooint?cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't feel you have the right to tell people what to do with their body.Jay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
i don't get how someone can be pro-life and pro-death.Jay wrote:
No innocent life is involved.13urnzz wrote:
how do you feel about capital punishment?Jay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.