Topic: Those evil republicans!
started by: CatKnight
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,18:06
Which party wants you to keep more of YOUR money, because YOU earned it?Which party wants to follow the constitution as closely as possible, to keep with the spirit of the founding fathers?
Which party wants you to work hard, so that your future generations will be better off?
Which party wants to give you the right to choose whether your children go to public or voucher schools?
Which party wants to uphold traditional moral values, which kept society wholesome for hundreds of years up until the 1960's?
Which party wants buissnesses to be as profitable as possible, so that YOU will make more money?
Which party wants to enforce democratic ideals throughout the world?
Which party refuses to negotiate with terrorists?
Which party, wants to make sure that all citizens have equal opportunity under the law?
Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 01 2002,18:12
I don't get it, but I know little of american politics...Can someone explain america to me?
Posted by kuru on Jun. 01 2002,18:50
We don't currently have a political party that lives up to its platform because only 30% of the people who can vote do so.It won't change until the majority of citizens force it to.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 01 2002,19:04
CK, some of your points are good, some of them are bad. While you may view those "morals" as being good, to some they created a living nightmare for their entire lives! Think about women for example. They were always told they had to stay in the home and raise the children because it was their moral obligation. They weren't allowed to have jobs to support themselves and thus were forced to rely on men inorder to survive.| Quote |
| Which party, wants to make sure that all citizens have equal opportunity under the law? |
That would be the more liberal parties, such as the democrats. Ever listened to some of the more famous republicans speak on the floor of Congress before? I know for a fact that Strom Thermon(sp?) hates jews, homosexuals, women in the work place, and even to some extent blacks. These aren't made up, these are things he has actually said while speaking to Congress! There are other republicans who hold much of the same views as Thermon. These are the guys who have been in there for over 20 years! Do we really want such old, outdated "morals" in our government?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,19:30
It has been proven through several psychological studies that children who's parents both work, end up having far more issues then those which their mother (or father) stays home. Women may want to liberate themselves, etc, and I'm all for equal wages, but you can't tell me that this has brought more of a positive change then a negative one.As far as equal opportunities, that is definately republicans (I'm sure there are plenty of moderates on both sides but that is beside the point). What liberals want is equality of OUTCOMES, which almost always involves disenfranchising one group in favor of another. Here is an example. We all want blacks and whites to have equal opportunity to go to college, right? Well, republicans will say "colleges may not base admittions on race", where as liberals will say "colleges MUST enroll a certain number of minorities, because it is only fair". Liberals don't want equal opportunity, they want minorities to have an advantage.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 02 2002,01:12
I will side with you on the whole "affermative action" thing. I never did think it was fair, for either party. It just reinforces that idea that one group is inheritly weaker than the other and needs protection. So, hell has just frozen over. I have just agreed with CK.
Posted by chmod on Jun. 02 2002,01:44
Yeah, it was pretty discouraging when someone (that just happens to be African-American) who had lower SAT scores than me, a lower class rank, a lower GPA, and almost no curricular activities gets a full scholarship (merit, not need-based) to a university that offered me less than 1/2 of that. Anything where other people undeservingly get hand-outs at someone else's expense strikes me as entirely ridiculous. 
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 02 2002,04:01
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 June 2002,13:06) |
| Which party wants you to keep more of YOUR money, because YOU earned it? Which party wants to follow the constitution as closely as possible, to keep with the spirit of the founding fathers? Which party wants you to work hard, so that your future generations will be better off? Which party wants to give you the right to choose whether your children go to public or voucher schools? Which party wants to uphold traditional moral values, which kept society wholesome for hundreds of years up until the 1960's? Which party wants buissnesses to be as profitable as possible, so that YOU will make more money? Which party wants to enforce democratic ideals throughout the world? Which party refuses to negotiate with terrorists? Which party, wants to make sure that all citizens have equal opportunity under the law? |
god ck, can't you do better than using the same damn generic sentence over and over?(which party wants xxx)
Posted by demonk on Jun. 02 2002,04:11
it's actually a very effective way to get someone's attention.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 02 2002,04:22
| Quote (demonk @ 01 June 2002,23:11) |
| it's actually a very effective way to get someone's attention. |
perhaps, but it's still very annoying.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 02 2002,05:27
Which party has openly been the whore of corporations?Which party doesn't give a rat's ass about the parts of the constitution which talk about equal rights, but go nuts when you talk about guns?
Which party wants to kick you off welfare so you can have a better life, even though you can't get a job because of their economic policy?
Which party wants to take money away from public schools who desperately need every cent, and give it to private schools who don't?
Which party wants to go back to the good old days of the 1960s, when blacks knew their place, and working wives were almost unheard of?
Which party wants buisnesses to be able to lay you off, and not give you benefits you need for you and your family?
Which party wants to bring back American imperialism, and wants to act as the world police for profit?
Which party bombs innocent civillians in Afghanistan, rather than peacefully negotiate with the Taliban, and also replaces them with Northern Alliance thugs, who are just as brutal, if not so religious as the Taliban?
Which party has helped to make the rich richer, and increase the prison population to record heights, the majority of which is black and poor?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 02 2002,06:02
I'll just do these all in order.1. corporations == people, what's the problem?
2. LIBERALS, duh!!
3. what economic policy prevents them from getting jobs?
4. PUBLIC SCHOOLS DONT NEED ANY MORE MONEY! On average, public schools recieve 5 to 10 times more funding then most private schools, which do much much better on standardized tests. Furthermore, the two cities' school's which recieve the most amount of money, Philly and DC, are also THE WORST schools in the country.
5. no one ever said anything about reverting back to racism or sexism
6. I don't know what you are referring to there.
7. that would be the UN actually, supported by the liberals.
8. that statement is wholly incorrect
9. a) the rich are richer because of the free market, the poor are poorer because of welfare. the rich don't take away from the poor, they GIVE to the poor (directly and indirectly).
b) prison population is so high directly because of liberal policies. there are many correlations to blacks, welfare, single parent families, and crime. there are none whatsoever to republicans.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 02 2002,06:47
/me bows to Bozeman.with the exception of negotiating with the Taliban... that's kind of like trying to negotiate with a Republican. it just doesn't work.
here's one to add to the list...
which party has the common sense to think that the #1 reason we have so many people in prison is that our laws are too restrictive?
which party thinks that we should focus on rehabilitating prisoners - which has been shown to substantially decrease repeat crime - instead of punishing them as brutally as possible because "it's the right thing to do", even though it results in extraordinarily high repeat offender rates?
which party chooses common sense over dogma?
hint: it ain't the Republicans.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 02 2002,07:07
which party has the common sense to think that the #1 reason we have so many people in prison is that our laws are too restrictive?jee yeah, thats a good idea. are there too many armed robberies? let's not try to figure out why there are too many, and just let them off. Hopefully they won't turn in muderers.
christ DSL I'm just plain tired of your 100% backwards bullcrap. You are so incorrect, so far removed from reality, that me and my room mate were just laughing out loud. I'm gonna have to try to get on rush or quinn and tell them about you.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 02 2002,07:48
please do. getting trashed by conservative talk radio will only enhance most people's respect for me, lolas evidence for my statement, I respectfully submit the following :
1. The War on Drugs. Yep, we need to make sure we lock away those marijuana growers and dealers, as well as the users. Why treat addicts when you can jail them instead? That way they can become real criminals!
2. Mandatory sentencing. Let's make sure judges have no authority to use common sense. Another brilliant way to produce more criminals!
3. The DMCA. This is pure brilliance.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 02 2002,07:58
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 01 June 2002,23:48) |
| 3. The DMCA. This is pure brilliance. |
As one liberal to another, you can't blame the republicans souly for this one. Both sides where bought off by the RIAA, MPAA, etc, etc. Both sides are equally guilty of this crime. Ok, timeout is over.
Ready...
FIGHT!
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 02 2002,08:20
agreed, the Democrats are guilty on that as well.your average liberal doesn't like it much though. the fatcat limousine liberals do, though, and unfortunately they fund the Dems...
campaign finance reform, anyone?
Posted by chmod on Jun. 02 2002,16:14
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 01 June 2002,23:48) |
| please do. getting trashed by conservative talk radio will only enhance most people's respect for me, lol as evidence for my statement, I respectfully submit the following : 1. The War on Drugs. Yep, we need to make sure we lock away those marijuana growers and dealers, as well as the users. Why treat addicts when you can jail them instead? That way they can become real criminals! 2. Mandatory sentencing. Let's make sure judges have no authority to use common sense. Another brilliant way to produce more criminals! 3. The DMCA. This is pure brilliance. |
What about hate crime legislation? Although it's completely useless and serves no purpose whatsoever, it was conceived and supported by liberals mainly as a ploy to gain support from minority groups (well, if there's any other purpose for it, I have yet to be informed of it).
| Quote |
| Which party doesn't give a rat's ass about the parts of the constitution which talk about equal rights, but go nuts when you talk about guns? |
wtf? Just because republicans oppose special treatment doesn't mean they don't support equal treatment.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 02 2002,19:07
| Quote (kuru @ 01 June 2002,19:24) |
| Yea, affirmative action does suck. Being a chick is not a handicap for which I need a special leg-up to be a great engineer. Fuck you very much AA. |
I dunno, I'd say female engineers still need to be at least somewhat more skilled than the avg male engineer to get the same respect that he'd get. Which is definately stupid, but nothing that won't change given time. Just gotta wait for the older engineers to die.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 02 2002,19:37
double post! This was too good to pass up.| Quote (Bozeman @ 01 June 2002,23:27) |
| Which party has openly been the whore of corporations? |
Both.
| Quote |
| Which party doesn't give a rat's ass about the parts of the constitution which talk about equal rights, but go nuts when you talk about guns? |
I think you missed the 1860s, didn't you? Oh and calling Affirmative Action what it is--reverse discrimination--and wanting a better system isn't a wrong thing.
| Quote |
| Which party wants to kick you off welfare so you can have a better life, even though you can't get a job because of their economic policy? |
Yeah, uhhm, as opposed to letting you sit on welfare and pop out more babies that you can't support so you can get more money for you alcohol/crack habit? </sarcasm> But seriously, they want to make welfare what it was ment to be, a very temporary support for those out of work to make sure that we didn't lose important skilled workers.
| Quote |
| Which party wants to take money away from public schools who desperately need every cent, and give it to private schools who don't? |
Well, let's consider this, I went to a school that spent about half of what the inner city schools were spending per pupil, and got a better education. So obviously throwing money at the problem won't make it go away, although it might attract somewhat better teachers. To be honest, the real problem with the education system is that it was designed to churn out factory workers. And that it's got a lot of uneeded layers of beurocracy.
| Quote |
| Which party wants to go back to the good old days of the 1960s, when blacks knew their place, and working wives were almost unheard of? |
| Quote |
| Which party wants buisnesses to be able to lay you off, and not give you benefits you need for you and your family? |
| Quote |
| Which party wants to bring back American imperialism, and wants to act as the world police for profit? |
I'd be glad if we actually got paid to act as the world policeman, I mean we're already damned by everyone when we go and act as world policeman, and damned by everyone if we don't.
| Quote |
| Which party bombs innocent civillians in Afghanistan, rather than peacefully negotiate with the Taliban, and also replaces them with Northern Alliance thugs, who are just as brutal, if not so religious as the Taliban? |
Okay, so which party was in power when we intentionally targeted German civillians with firebombs? Better then devil we know, I mean at least the Nothern Alliance let's us subvert them with MTV.
| Quote |
| Which party has helped to make the rich richer, and increase the prison population to record heights, the majority of which is black and poor? |
Which party has helped the rich get richer? They both help the rich get richer, the rich just change the ways they make money depending on who's in power. See, when you're rich you don't have to spend such a large portion of your assets and most of them can be used to make more money.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 02 2002,20:49
ah, those welfare mothers who sit around and breed because the government pays them not to work...i've never met one.
no one i've ever challenged to produce one has done so.
the economics of it don't make sense either... the extra money gained by having another extra baby (if any) doesn't balance the cost of feeding it.
which leads me to the conclusion that they are a figment of Republican imagination.
white middle-class men who defraud the system... now THEY are a reality...
Posted by editor on Jun. 02 2002,20:55
Right now, that is looking good.How does one get unemployment?
Feed me!
Posted by kuru on Jun. 02 2002,21:00
I've met them. I went to elementary school with their kids. I still encounter the children of welfare mothers whose full attitude on life is 'I don't have to learn to read, I'm going to go on welfare like my mother.'They exist, but you have to go beyond upper-middle-class suburbia to find them.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 02 2002,21:45
Just go to North Philly DSL you will find a bunch of them.Most of them think its a way of life because it was good enough for their parents.
And they all complain that "The Man" is trying to keep them down.
In all fairness, i know 2 personaly that got the fuck out of that way of life. took the money that was handed to them for school and put it to good use. Finished collage and never looked back. Find that the people left behind are not even worth the time to help because They wont help themselves get out of the life they are in.
Kevin Anderson is one. His mother and 2 of his sisters are lifetime welfare mothers. AFAIK he has not talked to any of them since 89.
Jamal Brown is the other. His mother is dead (crack od, HE is raising his little brother with NO goverment help) and his sister is still on welfare and just had her 4th kid (she is 26) by a 3rd father.
So yes, i know people on both sides.
Posted by chmod on Jun. 02 2002,22:48
Also, welfare would be even worse if the republicans hadn't shoved the welfare reform bill down Clinton's throat (although Clinton calmly took credit for it himself in the state of the union address).
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,00:10
thanks for deleting my post kuru. any posts you make that have even one word that is off topic or imflammatory will be deleted. that is all.btw that post took me about an hour to write up and prepare counter arguments.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 03 2002,00:28
I never deleted any of your posts, CK. The most I have done is publicly tell you to keep it on topic and not insult your oppnents directly.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,01:58
well someone deleted my long-ass post, it was either you, DSL, or editer...
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,02:22
| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 June 2002,20:58) |
| well someone deleted my long-ass post, it was either you, DSL, or editer... |
or one of the other moderators(the moderators have global moderator editing ability)
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 03 2002,03:21
sure as hell wasn't me.Scooby Doo! Where are you?
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,04:37
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 02 June 2002,22:21) |
| sure as hell wasn't me. Scooby Doo! Where are you? |
perhaps someone should take a look in the moderator logs?
just a thought.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 03 2002,04:51
The last four entries in the log:02 June 2002,16:11 CatKnight Deleted a post in forum Politics
02 June 2002,16
8 CatKnight Deleted a post in forum Politics 01 June 2002,00:11 CatKnight Deleted a post in forum Politics
31 May 2002,23:56 editor Deleted a post in forum Politics
Why is CK on a a deleting binge?
Hmm.
Posted by editor on Jun. 03 2002,04:55
I only delete myself.I think people would notice if I deleted others.
It's a public service!
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 03 2002,05:01
only deletes made yesterday & today are from CK.only person who has enough access to alter the logs is me.
i didn't delete CK's post. i don't do anything like that without leaving something like
<deleted by dsl: reason>
ck has an unusually high amount of activity. kuru and I haven't deleted a single post in the Politics forums. ck has deleted ~10.
obviously someone's going overboard with their moderator privelege.
/me makes mental note to pay more attention to the logs.
ck has his access privileges dropped.
poof!
Posted by editor on Jun. 03 2002,05:07
DSL is an awesome admin.He pays attention.
CK, you must be pissed about now.
give it time
CK, if you ever really need admin functions
let me know.
Remember how I was when you were spoofed?
kbreak
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,06:40
| Quote (editor @ 03 June 2002,00:07) |
| CK, if you ever really need admin functions let me know. |
why would he have a legitimate reason to have admin privilages anyway?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,06:52
wtf I havn't deleted anything! can you track what IP was logged in when that happened?I don't mind you taking away my mod for the time being, since I hardly ever do anything, and apparantly someone is haxing under my name.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,07:04
| Quote (CatKnight @ 03 June 2002,01:52) |
| can you track what IP was logged in when that happened? |
| Quote |
| I don't mind you taking away my mod for the time being |
I don't think that DSL is going to give you your former status back, CK.
Posted by editor on Jun. 03 2002,07:13
If this is true....I'll look in the am.
Posted by hannibal on Jun. 03 2002,08:01
| Quote (Dysorderia @ 02 June 2002,23:04) | ||||
I don't think that DSL is going to give you your former status back, CK. |
with ikon board the 'super admin' can see exactly which moderators do what.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,08:04
| Quote (hannibal @ 03 June 2002,03) |
| with ikon board the 'super admin' can see exactly which moderators do what. |
yes, but it doesn't log the ip of the person making said action
Posted by kuru on Jun. 03 2002,12:11
Yeah, sure, make CK an admin because he's complaining about posts that I never (or anyone else for that matter) deleted. So then once he's an admin and he starts deleting even more posts and worse, banning all the people he would have called a douchebag, we can all see how brilliant that idea was.
Nobody deleted CK's posts but CK.
Posted by editor on Jun. 03 2002,14:31
DSL has removed all the admin rights from the moderators.We'll figure it out.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 03 2002,15:22
| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 June 2002,02:02) |
| I'll just do these all in order. 1. corporations == people, what's the problem? 2. LIBERALS, duh!! 3. what economic policy prevents them from getting jobs? 4. PUBLIC SCHOOLS DONT NEED ANY MORE MONEY! On average, public schools recieve 5 to 10 times more funding then most private schools, which do much much better on standardized tests. Furthermore, the two cities' school's which recieve the most amount of money, Philly and DC, are also THE WORST schools in the country. 5. no one ever said anything about reverting back to racism or sexism 6. I don't know what you are referring to there. 7. that would be the UN actually, supported by the liberals. 8. that statement is wholly incorrect 9. a) the rich are richer because of the free market, the poor are poorer because of welfare. the rich don't take away from the poor, they GIVE to the poor (directly and indirectly). b) prison population is so high directly because of liberal policies. there are many correlations to blacks, welfare, single parent families, and crime. there are none whatsoever to republicans. |
I'll just do these all in order.
1. Corporations != people, corporations are companies. They are run by a few people, who constantly take advantage of the masses. (yes there are some exceptions) Corporations pollute, rip off or lay off their workers, and rip off consumers, while lobbying congress with the money they got from you so they can do it even worse later.
2. Conservatives believe that putting up the 10 commandments would have stopped columbine, but not gun control laws. Watch The Awful Truth second season if you don't believe me.
3. REAGANOMICS!
4. Don't NEED money? Have you SEEN inner city schools? They have classes in hallways and bathrooms! Perhaps scores wouldn't be so low if they had the funding to teach properly.
5. Ah, good old 1960's... before the women and the blacks got all their "equal rights" which are still FAR from equal.... makes me so nostalgic.... Women (on average) don't get paid as much as men, and most blacks are working poor. And CK wants to go "back" to the 1960s instead of forward. You didn't NEED to say anything about racism or sexism.
6. Conservatives are all for allowing businesses to screw their workers. Don't believe me? Do some research. Check your local congressperson's voting record. The "pro buisness" anti-poor agenda isn't hard to find.
7. MMMM HHHMMMM..... That's why America saw the need to intervene in places like GRENADA, or NICARAGUA without UN support. Yeah it's all the LIBERALS....
8. Sure it's incorrect. After all, they didn't tell us that on Fox News, and they wouldn't hold anything back, would they? After all, theyr'e not the butt-puppet of the conservatives, right?
9. a) The Rich are richer because Reagan economic policies which were SUPPORTED by Clinton screwed the poor. The economic boom was the internet and a couple other things, and now it's busted. The poor didn't see a bit of that "economic boom", but the folks at ENRON sure did. Enron ripped off California and a whole bunch of other places, and it looks like theyr'e going to get away with it.
b) The prison population is so high because of CONSERVATIVE policies such as MANDATORY SENTENCING and JAIL TIME FOR NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS! Because Drugs happen a lot in the inner cities, where blacks are concentrated, Most of the drug convictions are black poor. It's apartheid, American style! Oh, and your'e overlooking CORPORATE CRIME for the republicans. There's a VERY high correlation between corporate crimnals and conservatives. Almost every corporate crimnal votes Republican! Look at Bosco industries, Jack Welch of General Electric (retired) and countless more.
*whok!* (tennis ball goes back to CK's court)
Posted by chmod on Jun. 03 2002,16:12
| Quote |
| Corporations != people, corporations are companies. They are run by a few people, who constantly take advantage of the masses. |
Corporations == stockholders == people.
| Quote |
| Corporations pollute |
Okay then, let's outlaw all pollution by corporations and see how long it takes for the economy to collapse because nothing can be produced, shall we?
| Quote |
| rip off or lay off their workers |
That's why we have unions. And, if a worker is getting "ripped off" then he quits his job. It's in the best interest of the corporation to keep its workers satisfied-if a corporation screws over its workers, it's screwing over itself.
| Quote |
| and rip off consumers |
That's why our economy works on a principle called competition. If the consumer is getting ripped off, he goes somewhere else. If there is no competition, well then thats where the anti trust laws come into play...
Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,17:36
| Quote (chmod @ 03 June 2002,08:12) |
| Quote |
| Corporations == stockholders == people. |
Corporations are OWNED by people, but are run by a select few.
| Quote |
| Okay then, let's outlaw all pollution by corporations and see how long it takes for the economy to collapse because nothing can be produced, shall we? |
Either way, it won't matter in 20-30 years when we have no ozon layer, no drinkable water, no top soil, and the oxygen level in the atomosphere has dropped to almost nothing.
| Quote |
| That's why we have unions. And, if a worker is getting "ripped off" then he quits his job. It's in the best interest of the corporation to keep its workers satisfied-if a corporation screws over its workers, it's screwing over itself. |
And when the unions themselves aren't any better if not worse than the corporations they are supposed to be protecting the workers from? Then what? And what if a person can't quite their job because there is a recetion going on and he has more change of wining the lottery than finding another job?
| Quote |
| That's why our economy works on a principle called competition. If the consumer is getting ripped off, he goes somewhere else. If there is no competition, well then thats where the anti trust laws come into play... |
Then explain how the MPAA and RIAA are a good thing. Yes, when there is legitimate competition, the consumer wins. Just look at Intel and AMD. We are the winner of that show down. But when you get all the companies in an industry together much like the RIAA has, you stop being competitive. The consumer doesn't win. We get screwed and have no choice but to take it and ask for another.
Posted by chmod on Jun. 03 2002,18:22
| Quote |
| And when the unions themselves aren't any better if not worse than the corporations they are supposed to be protecting the workers from? Then what? And what if a person can't quite their job because there is a recetion going on and he has more change of wining the lottery than finding another job? |
Well that's actually a pretty complicated issue... but my point is that workers aren't powerless against corporations.
And if it's a recession? People lose jobs, that's what a recession does! It sucks, but that's the way it is. The corporation can either lay off workers and try to rehabilitate itself, or go under completely and end up putting the whole company out of a job, which is even worse.
| Quote |
| But when you get all the companies in an industry together much like the RIAA has, you stop being competitive. The consumer doesn't win. We get screwed and have no choice but to take it and ask for another. |
Of course. Hence, my mention of anti-trust laws. That's what they're meant to protect us from.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 03 2002,19:34
| Quote (Bozeman @ 03 June 2002,07:22) |
| 1. Corporations != people, corporations are companies. They are run by a few people, who constantly take advantage of the masses. (yes there are some exceptions) Corporations pollute, rip off or lay off their workers, and rip off consumers, while lobbying congress with the money they got from you so they can do it even worse later. 2. Conservatives believe that putting up the 10 commandments would have stopped columbine, but not gun control laws. Watch The Awful Truth second season if you don't believe me. 3. REAGANOMICS! 4. Don't NEED money? Have you SEEN inner city schools? They have classes in hallways and bathrooms! Perhaps scores wouldn't be so low if they had the funding to teach properly. 5. Ah, good old 1960's... before the women and the blacks got all their "equal rights" which are still FAR from equal.... makes me so nostalgic.... Women (on average) don't get paid as much as men, and most blacks are working poor. And CK wants to go "back" to the 1960s instead of forward. You didn't NEED to say anything about racism or sexism. 6. Conservatives are all for allowing businesses to screw their workers. Don't believe me? Do some research. Check your local congressperson's voting record. The "pro buisness" anti-poor agenda isn't hard to find. 7. MMMM HHHMMMM..... That's why America saw the need to intervene in places like GRENADA, or NICARAGUA without UN support. Yeah it's all the LIBERALS.... 8. Sure it's incorrect. After all, they didn't tell us that on Fox News, and they wouldn't hold anything back, would they? After all, theyr'e not the butt-puppet of the conservatives, right? 9. a) The Rich are richer because Reagan economic policies which were SUPPORTED by Clinton screwed the poor. The economic boom was the internet and a couple other things, and now it's busted. The poor didn't see a bit of that "economic boom", but the folks at ENRON sure did. Enron ripped off California and a whole bunch of other places, and it looks like theyr'e going to get away with it. b) The prison population is so high because of CONSERVATIVE policies such as MANDATORY SENTENCING and JAIL TIME FOR NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS! Because Drugs happen a lot in the inner cities, where blacks are concentrated, Most of the drug convictions are black poor. It's apartheid, American style! Oh, and your'e overlooking CORPORATE CRIME for the republicans. There's a VERY high correlation between corporate crimnals and conservatives. Almost every corporate crimnal votes Republican! Look at Bosco industries, Jack Welch of General Electric (retired) and countless more. *whok!* (tennis ball goes back to CK's court) |
Sorry ...I gotta give my views on some of this.
1. Yes, they do all that ...but that's pretty much the point of a corporation to make a profit!! If you only charge what it cost you then you wouldn't make a profit, a good company will jack up the price as much as they can and the consumer will love them for it.
2. I think better parenting would be best of all.
3. I think the poor misunderstood "Trickle Down" as some guy will come to your door and just hand you money.
4. What school teaches class in a bathroom? I will personally donate money to that school if that is a valid statment.
5. No comment except Everbody Gets Paid What They Deserve ...if you think otherwise then site me a specific instance.
6. Yes this is true. When I hire somebody I try and low-ball them as much as possible. This again is in the best interest of the corporation. This is why there is a minimum wage, if there weren't I would hire people for a stick of gum. The problem I have is that some people actually better their self worth and a corporation can't screw them ...hmmm ...maybe some people should look into that.
7. I don't think we should send anybody anywhere ...it costs too much of my tax dollars.
8. Fox is not news ...it's a TV show ...it's entertainment for the retarded masses. If you want news then subscribe to a valid news wire service and get unbiased news.
9.
a. The Internet boom helped investors ...the poor could've made money if they invested, they just didn't think of it ...that's why they're poor.
b. How about if you want to stay out of jail then don't commit crime. How come it's always racist if police arrest ethnic minorities who are dealing crack ...how about you just don't deal crack ...and get you buddies to stop dealing crack ..eventually the police will leave you alone. As for corporate criminals being Republican is that really some kind of revelation? The corporation wouldn't be there if there were no Republicans ...it would be some kinda hippy co-op.
These are my opinions ...you are entitled to your own damn hippy welfare opinions as well
Posted by veistran on Jun. 03 2002,20:49
lol @ wiley, I can't figure out if he was being serious or not with that bit about corporate criminals, I mean he says it like it's some great revelation.| Quote |
| Either way, it won't matter in 20-30 years when we have no ozon layer, no drinkable water, no top soil, and the oxygen level in the atomosphere has dropped to almost nothing. |
Hi, chicken little. Now seriously, maybe you can back that statement up with some facts? What was that? You can't? Didn't think so. Don't post pure conjecture as if it were fact, please. IF what you were saying was so true, can you explain to me why none of our good _friends_ in the EU has ratified Kyoto even after they spent months complaining because GWB backed out until it was fixed? I can, it's a flawed piece of work, it sounds good on paper maybe, but it's an unworkable solution. It's like installing a screen door on a submarine. In short, it's targeting the wrong people, it's targeting the wrong pollutants, and it's completely unenforcable on the people it should be targeting.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,21:44
< EU ratifies Kyoto Treaty >Ball is back in your court now
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 03 2002,23:13
| Quote (Bozeman @ 03 June 2002,07:22) |
| 1. Corporations != people, corporations are companies. They are run by a few people, who constantly take advantage of the masses. (yes there are some exceptions) Corporations pollute, rip off or lay off their workers, and rip off consumers, while lobbying congress with the money they got from you so they can do it even worse later. 2. Conservatives believe that putting up the 10 commandments would have stopped columbine, but not gun control laws. Watch The Awful Truth second season if you don't believe me. 5. Ah, good old 1960's... before the women and the blacks got all their "equal rights" which are still FAR from equal.... makes me so nostalgic.... Women (on average) don't get paid as much as men, and most blacks are working poor. And CK wants to go "back" to the 1960s instead of forward. You didn't NEED to say anything about racism or sexism. 6. Conservatives are all for allowing businesses to screw their workers. Don't believe me? Do some research. Check your local congressperson's voting record. The "pro buisness" anti-poor agenda isn't hard to find. |
1. Aside from Wiley's comments, this was covered in a thread earlier..., the rich get rich by selling stuff that everybody buys. Including the poor. That the poor (and everyone else) are willing to shell out money for the commodoties sold by corporations simply shows that the corporations are selling something that the poor (and everyone else) feel is worth buying. This is the result of competition..., of course when there's no competition things are a little different (hence, anti-trust laws).
2. Don't even start on columbine. Both the democrats and conservatives responded to this awfully. It's kind of hard to figure out which approach was more idiotic -- ignore the problem and just try to stop hate-filled teens from being ABLE to commit the crimes (a futile exercise at best! ) or pretend that you can brainwash them into ignoring what they suffer and not commit the crimes (I hear this works in lala land)
5. Y'know, when CK said he wanted to go back to the 1960's, I don't think he had that in mind..., it's somewhat misrepresentative to say his intent was to repeal equal-rights legistlation and re-instate jim crow laws. He just seems to feel (as many conservatives do) that morals were better back then.
6. I'd respond but Wiley just about covered everything.
Wiley sorry if I repeated anything you said...if I did, just think of it as added impact
Posted by veistran on Jun. 03 2002,23:51
| Quote (demonk @ 03 June 2002,15:44) |
| < EU ratifies Kyoto Treaty > Ball is back in your court now |
oh they did finally, a year later. I should send them a thanks for jumping on that hand grenade for me card? Or should I wait until it blows up?
Posted by demonk on Jun. 04 2002,00:16
I'm waiting to see the outcome as much as you are. I applaud their bravery though. Must be scary to tackle something the big, strong US is afraid to touch. I wish them luck.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 04 2002,00:49
| Quote (veistran @ 03 June 2002,18:51) | ||
oh they did finally, a year later. I should send them a thanks for jumping on that hand grenade for me card? Or should I wait until it blows up? |
veistran, stop being so damned ignorant.
negotiating a pact between 15 different countries isn't something that will be over in a month.
| Quote |
| Don't post pure conjecture as if it were fact |
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,01:44
Thats a good question, the only reason I can think of is that he is again pandering to the liberals to take away issues from them.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 04 2002,07:41
I'm saying his exact statement was conjecture, it had nothing to do with "global warming the theory" which I also think is still very much unproven. as far as being ignorant. hah, kyoto isn't worth the paper it's written on. it'll fall apart rather quickly barring some serious changes in how it's worked, specifically in the enforcement area.
The GWB and global warming, sounds like the same kind of calculated move as the steel tariffs to me.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,20:29
I heard on Rush that bush renounced the report, although I can't find any articles about it anywhere. I guess it's not very big news...