Breaking News: It Seems Corporate America Looks More Favorably on the GOP!

[SwiftyLeZar]

New York Times - "Corporate PAC's Backed Republicans 10 to 1" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/politics/26PAC.html?ex=1102136400&en=2d4653738af29293&ei=50 06&partner=ALTAVISTA1)

I would have never guessed, would you?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

:shock:

[Moxio]

That's lame.

[Drocket]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

[elprincipe]

Wowwie, next you'll shock us with the news that unions and environmentalists supported Democrats!

[bmulligan]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

[bignick]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.
:applause:

[CaseyRyback]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

Corporate America rules! If they their way all the time we would see

1. no minimum wage
2. no health care
3. every industry monopolized
4. no equal employment rights


corporate america serves a purpose, but they do as many things right as they do wrong.

[Drocket]

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings.

Let me assure you, they don't give a shit about you. They'd kill you and sell your organs if they could make a profit on it. All the good things you list are pretty much side-effects of corporations: if they had their way, you'd be living in a small windowless room, chained to a workbench and fed the scientifically-calculated minimum amount of gruel needed to keep you alive and productive.

If you want to thank anyone for your standard of living, thank the unions, and the people who worked and fought and often died on your behalf to give you a minimum standard of living and the right to work to rise in the world.

[camoor]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

Thanks for stealing all of my money Enron and Worldcom! I'd probably have done something stupid like "donated it to charity" or "bought something I needed" if you hadn't taken it from me!

You corporate guys rule! Here's to more CEO benefits in 2005!! :) !!

People who see the benefits of government regulation of business are Communists. Those evil people don't understand the benefit of a message board or a ps2 or medical technology. Bad bad communists, you must bow down and worship the golden idols of the Walmart Smiley and the Golden Arches!!

[alonzomourning23]

accidentally double posted

[alonzomourning23]

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

"You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago." That's the key line. They provide barely subsistence level pay for millions of workers in various parts of the world (and leave for the next country when they start demanding more). And who exactly are they risking? I'd say a company such as nike risks the safety of a vietnamese child much more than themselves, it's even worse when you consider that if a worker gets injured then they're out of a job. They make so much money that fluctuations in their company have no affect on their own lives and salaries, that is unless the company folds, where they will still have more than I will ever make, and I can make more in a year than many people will make their whole lives working in their assembly lines. And look at south america and the disaster that oil drilling has had for not only wildlife, but the natives whose land they often drill on. 1.3 billion people live below the world poverty line of $1 a day, and in africa there are many countries where the percentage of the population is well over 50%. Sure they have benefited many, but I'm not about to start thanking them.[/quote]

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

I'd like to know of one ceo or president who ever decided to build, start or join a corporation to help the average person instead of themselves or their own family.

[SwiftyLeZar]

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

Back to reality...

I'm so glad we have corporations to give us jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, only to decide later that it would be much more profitable to fire us and ship our jobs overseas where the labor laws are more lax and the employees can be worked longer hours in worse conditions for lower wages (see: Nike, Old Navy, etc.).
It really is wonderful that we have those selfless corporations such as Bill Frist's Health Corporation which fradulently overbilled the government (LA Weekly: "The Bad Doctor: Bill Frist's Long Record of Corporate Vices" (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/08/news-ireland.php)), among other crimes which led to massive fines from the government.
And who can forget big-name corporate saints like Ken Lay and Martha Stewart, who were clearly looking out for the best interests of their employees and society as a whole; they were merely misunderstood by the very society they were fighting to help.

I love corporations. Corporations like Boeing, who illegally hire members of the Air Force so they will be guranteed lucrative government contracts (Telegraph - " Top Boeing executive faces jail for hiring USAF woman" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/11/16/cnboe16.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2004/11/16/ixcity.html)).


The bottom line: corporations exist only to turn a profit. They care nothing about their employees' wellbeing, nor of the wellbeing of society or the planet and it is the obligation of society to enforce strict regulations on what corporations can and cannot do.

Where exactly do you live? It can't be anyplace around here. You probably don't live in China, Taiwan, Mexico, Indonesia, or the United States. Happy Land? Sunshine and Lollypopville?
Where are all these corporations who love people so much?

I also like this line:
"If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce."

Fun fact about those lazy pieces of shit on government handouts and government-mandated charity!
Any fledgling economist could tell you that the Federal Reserve deliberately maintains an unemployment rate of 4%-6%. Anything lower than that is called economic "overheating." If the economy overheats, inflation rises. If the unemployment rate were eliminated, inflation would rise dramatically.

[Inmate #10943]

The bottom line: corporations exist only to turn a profit.

Couldn't agree more there!
Times have changed a lot in the last 50 years. Now we're the corporations with our stock holdings and mutual funds.
Just about everybody is invested one way or another in big corporations. Union pension funds
and individuals have their retirement money invested with a lot of so-called "evil" corporations.
And when the corps. don't turn a profit and your investment takes a nose-dive people get pretty upset.

Most investors are just average people planning for the future. These same people generally don't care
if one of the corps. they're invested in uses whips on the employees. Just as long as the corp.
turns a profit and their investment goes up. It's that ole Pogo saying, "They are us!"

[camoor]

The bottom line: corporations exist only to turn a profit.

Couldn't agree more there!
Times have changed a lot in the last 50 years. Now we're the corporations with our stock holdings and mutual funds.
Just about everybody is invested one way or another in big corporations. Union pension funds
and individuals have their retirement money invested with a lot of so-called "evil" corporations.
And when the corps. don't turn a profit and your investment takes a nose-dive people get pretty upset.

Most investors are just average people planning for the future. These same people generally don't care
if one of the corps. they're invested in uses whips on the employees. Just as long as the corp.
turns a profit and their investment goes up. It's that ole Pogo saying, "They are us!"

Unless you have a controlling interest in a corporation, do you really think your opinion matters? Do you really think that you have the same access to insider information that a wealthy investor has?

The wealthy are once again asserting control, using the typical razzle-dazzle to fool the middle and poor classes.

[Inmate #10943]

Unless you have a controlling interest in a corporation, do you really think your opinion matters?

Absolutely! Look when people started divesting in South Africa because of apartheid. That wasn't corps. speaking out, that was the people. Some Unions I am familiar with have hundreds of millions of retirement funds invested. They supposedly represent the average Joe, and if they threatened to pull their money from certain corps. they would definitely get some action.

Do you really think that you have the same access to insider information that a wealthy investor has?

No! It's illegal! Ask Martha Stewart.

The wealthy are once again asserting control, using the typical razzle-dazzle to fool the middle and poor classes.

Well I don't think you can lump the wealthy as a whole in with a few bad apples.

[camoor]

Martha was just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to insider information getting kicked around. It's not just "a few bad apples".

About 30-40 years ago, unions were too powerful and countries like Japan were able to capitalize. Since then power has shifted back into the control of the corporations (controlled by the wealthy), and it's almost time for the pendulum to swing back towards the people. The puppet politicians that unconditionally support the corporations will only end up overplaying their hands, and I cannot believe that people will continue to vote for "moral values" while they are unemployed and the US Dollar continues to plummet.

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

[Inmate #10943]

Martha was just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to insider information getting kicked around. It's not just "a few bad apples".

About 30-40 years ago, unions were too powerful and countries like Japan were able to capitalize. Since then power has shifted back into the control of the corporations (controlled by the wealthy), and it's almost time for the pendulum to swing back towards the people. The puppet politicians that unconditionally support the corporations will only end up overplaying their hands, and I cannot believe that people will continue to vote for "moral values" while they are unemployed and the US Dollar continues to plummet.

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

Ah, this all sounds sooo familiar :D
I was once an agnostic anarchist. Then I became a socialist. Then a liberal Democrat. Finally ended up as a conservative believing the money I earn is mine to spend as I choose and not the governments to spend.

I think it would be nice if everyone was more concerned with morals. It would solve a lot of the problems we have today. The world has benefitted far more from our imperfect capitalistic system than it has from any socialist country.

I think of the environment but I don't place it above humanity. There's gotta be a balance in there somewhere. And as for "world opinion" I could care less what others countries think of us. The only time they like us is when they're in trouble. There wouldn't be a France today if it wasn't for the sacrifice of American lives saving their sorry butts in 2 world wars. Maybe the rest of the world ought to be concerned about our opinion of them.

And as far as the dollar plummeting - "HOORAY!"
A lower dollar means we are exporting more. If you've been following the news, France and Germany (the country that started 2 world wars costing millions of lives) are going nuts because the dollar is way down. They're upset that it costs more to buy their "stuff". Germany's Schroeder is going ballistic. Lecturing us about the falling dollar because their exports are down. (insert Emoticon with the finger here)

[gamefreak]

"The bottom line: corporations exist only to turn a profit. They care nothing about their employees' wellbeing, nor of the wellbeing of society or the planet and it is the obligation of society to enforce strict regulations on what corporations can and cannot do. "

Half right. You know, in a capitalistic society people try to perform to make profit. If everyone made the same thing, why work? Why try to turn out a great product when no matter how well you did you would be paid the exact same thing? It is not their duty to make people have a good life. Nor the governments (it protects peoples rights, not grants them a happy life).

But come on now. If you're not paying your workers well or giving them health care, they have to pay their money buying stuff they need instead of what they want. And in most cases they'll be spending it in another industry which means you're losing their money. Henry Ford is a great example. Buy paying his employees more he found a) they could afford his product (a car), b) they worked harder because they had an incentive (and less to worry about; hard to think about working if you're hungry), and c) more people wanted to work for him. Also by giving people more time off, ala the work week, they spent money in other industries which eventually came back around to help him. If people want to go to the beach on their day off, how will they get there? By buying one of his cars.

[camoor]

Martha was just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to insider information getting kicked around. It's not just "a few bad apples".

About 30-40 years ago, unions were too powerful and countries like Japan were able to capitalize. Since then power has shifted back into the control of the corporations (controlled by the wealthy), and it's almost time for the pendulum to swing back towards the people. The puppet politicians that unconditionally support the corporations will only end up overplaying their hands, and I cannot believe that people will continue to vote for "moral values" while they are unemployed and the US Dollar continues to plummet.

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

Ah, this all sounds sooo familiar :D
I was once an agnostic anarchist. Then I became a socialist. Then a liberal Democrat. Finally ended up as a conservative believing the money I earn is mine to spend as I choose and not the governments to spend.

I think it would be nice if everyone was more concerned with morals. It would solve a lot of the problems we have today. The world has benefitted far more from our imperfect capitalistic system than it has from any socialist country.

I think of the environment but I don't place it above humanity. There's gotta be a balance in there somewhere. And as for "world opinion" I could care less what others countries think of us. The only time they like us is when they're in trouble. There wouldn't be a France today if it wasn't for the sacrifice of American lives saving their sorry butts in 2 world wars. Maybe the rest of the world ought to be concerned about our opinion of them.

And as far as the dollar plummeting - "HOORAY!"
A lower dollar means we are exporting more. If you've been following the news, France and Germany (the country that started 2 world wars costing millions of lives) are going nuts because the dollar is way down. They're upset that it costs more to buy their "stuff". Germany's Schroeder is going ballistic. Lecturing us about the falling dollar because their exports are down. (insert Emoticon with the finger here)

I think you can read between the lines when I say moral values. As in, "bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".

I'd like to build some friendship capital with the nations around the world. Then again, I'm the type of person who sees the benefit in having alot of friends. Bullies never prosper once stripped of their power.

I'm not thrilled about the decline of the dollar. True, there is a trade off with the buck going down, but it's a dangerous game and the USA better come up for air pretty soon. I'm getting sick of getting less and less with my dollar.

[gamefreak]

Martha was just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to insider information getting kicked around. It's not just "a few bad apples".

About 30-40 years ago, unions were too powerful and countries like Japan were able to capitalize. Since then power has shifted back into the control of the corporations (controlled by the wealthy), and it's almost time for the pendulum to swing back towards the people. The puppet politicians that unconditionally support the corporations will only end up overplaying their hands, and I cannot believe that people will continue to vote for "moral values" while they are unemployed and the US Dollar continues to plummet.

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

Ah, this all sounds sooo familiar :D
I was once an agnostic anarchist. Then I became a socialist. Then a liberal Democrat. Finally ended up as a conservative believing the money I earn is mine to spend as I choose and not the governments to spend.

I think it would be nice if everyone was more concerned with morals. It would solve a lot of the problems we have today. The world has benefitted far more from our imperfect capitalistic system than it has from any socialist country.

I think of the environment but I don't place it above humanity. There's gotta be a balance in there somewhere. And as for "world opinion" I could care less what others countries think of us. The only time they like us is when they're in trouble. There wouldn't be a France today if it wasn't for the sacrifice of American lives saving their sorry butts in 2 world wars. Maybe the rest of the world ought to be concerned about our opinion of them.

And as far as the dollar plummeting - "HOORAY!"
A lower dollar means we are exporting more. If you've been following the news, France and Germany (the country that started 2 world wars costing millions of lives) are going nuts because the dollar is way down. They're upset that it costs more to buy their "stuff". Germany's Schroeder is going ballistic. Lecturing us about the falling dollar because their exports are down. (insert Emoticon with the finger here)

I think you can read between the lines when I say moral values. As in, "bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".

I'd like to build some friendship capital with the nations around the world. Then again, I'm the type of person who sees the benefit in having alot of friends. Bullies never prosper once stripped of their power.

I'm not thrilled about the decline of the dollar. True, there is a trade off with the buck going down, but it's a dangerous game and the USA better come up for air pretty soon. I'm getting sick of getting less and less with my dollar.

There are people who hate other people, period. There are rascists, sexists, anti-semitists; the list goes on. Saying all right wing people hate homosexuals and want them to be tortured to death or something is just as bad as people like Hitler who say "The Jews are out to get us, lets kill them." I personally know tons of convservatives that have nothing against homosexuals. I know Christians who have nothing against homosexuals.

Edit: Oh and have fun "getting more for your dollar" if the government increases minimum wage or forces buisnesses to provide healthcare.

Edit Edit: Not saying that in a mean way, you simply can't have your pie and eat it too.

[SwiftyLeZar]

"The bottom line: corporations exist only to turn a profit. They care nothing about their employees' wellbeing, nor of the wellbeing of society or the planet and it is the obligation of society to enforce strict regulations on what corporations can and cannot do. "

Half right. You know, in a capitalistic society people try to perform to make profit. If everyone made the same thing, why work? Why try to turn out a great product when no matter how well you did you would be paid the exact same thing? It is not their duty to make people have a good life. Nor the governments (it protects peoples rights, not grants them a happy life).

But come on now. If you're not paying your workers well or giving them health care, they have to pay their money buying stuff they need instead of what they want. And in most cases they'll be spending it in another industry which means you're losing their money. Henry Ford is a great example. Buy paying his employees more he found a) they could afford his product (a car), b) they worked harder because they had an incentive (and less to worry about; hard to think about working if you're hungry), and c) more people wanted to work for him. Also by giving people more time off, ala the work week, they spent money in other industries which eventually came back around to help him. If people want to go to the beach on their day off, how will they get there? By buying one of his cars.

What are you trying to imply? That corporations don't abuse their workers because it's not in their best interest to do so?

[camoor]

Martha was just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to insider information getting kicked around. It's not just "a few bad apples".

About 30-40 years ago, unions were too powerful and countries like Japan were able to capitalize. Since then power has shifted back into the control of the corporations (controlled by the wealthy), and it's almost time for the pendulum to swing back towards the people. The puppet politicians that unconditionally support the corporations will only end up overplaying their hands, and I cannot believe that people will continue to vote for "moral values" while they are unemployed and the US Dollar continues to plummet.

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

Ah, this all sounds sooo familiar :D
I was once an agnostic anarchist. Then I became a socialist. Then a liberal Democrat. Finally ended up as a conservative believing the money I earn is mine to spend as I choose and not the governments to spend.

I think it would be nice if everyone was more concerned with morals. It would solve a lot of the problems we have today. The world has benefitted far more from our imperfect capitalistic system than it has from any socialist country.

I think of the environment but I don't place it above humanity. There's gotta be a balance in there somewhere. And as for "world opinion" I could care less what others countries think of us. The only time they like us is when they're in trouble. There wouldn't be a France today if it wasn't for the sacrifice of American lives saving their sorry butts in 2 world wars. Maybe the rest of the world ought to be concerned about our opinion of them.

And as far as the dollar plummeting - "HOORAY!"
A lower dollar means we are exporting more. If you've been following the news, France and Germany (the country that started 2 world wars costing millions of lives) are going nuts because the dollar is way down. They're upset that it costs more to buy their "stuff". Germany's Schroeder is going ballistic. Lecturing us about the falling dollar because their exports are down. (insert Emoticon with the finger here)

I think you can read between the lines when I say moral values. As in, "bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".

I'd like to build some friendship capital with the nations around the world. Then again, I'm the type of person who sees the benefit in having alot of friends. Bullies never prosper once stripped of their power.

I'm not thrilled about the decline of the dollar. True, there is a trade off with the buck going down, but it's a dangerous game and the USA better come up for air pretty soon. I'm getting sick of getting less and less with my dollar.

There are people who hate other people, period. There are rascists, sexists, anti-semitists; the list goes on. Saying all right wing people hate homosexuals and want them to be tortured to death or something is just as bad as people like Hitler who say "The Jews are out to get us, lets kill them." I personally know tons of convservatives that have nothing against homosexuals. I know Christians who have nothing against homosexuals.

Edit: Oh and have fun "getting more for your dollar" if the government increases minimum wage or forces buisnesses to provide healthcare.

Edit Edit: Not saying that in a mean way, you simply can't have your pie and eat it too.

I never said that a majority of Christian Conservatives want to torture homosexuals, they just want keep them out of sight and marginalize their rights much like the segregationists did with the african americans in the 1960s. The majority of conservatives find little fault with the radical wing's position. That's what I mean by bigotry.

As for the dollar, I admit that I'm no economist, but if you can't see the problems with a continually weakening dollar then you should pick up a US history book and find out what happened to the American economy in the 1970s.

And for the record Gamefreak, you don't even know my position on minimum wage and healthcare, so don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm not one of these pundits that religiously follows a party line.

[gamefreak]

No, and stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that you said you wanted higher wages? No, I said you can't have high wages and low prices.

I'm not nessasarily saying that they don't abuse workers because it's not in their best interests, I'm simplying saying it. I think it's a mixture of many things; among them that, a mostly competent workforce, and the law :)

[camoor]

No, and stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that you said you wanted higher wages? No, I said you can't have high wages and low prices.

I'm not nessasarily saying that they don't abuse workers because it's not in their best interests, I'm simplying saying it. I think it's a mixture of many things; among them that, a mostly competent workforce, and the law :)

You said I can't have my pie and eat it too. You don't know what my pie is!

All I'm saying is that the dollar needs strengthening, and I can see the weakness already affecting me. If you disagree fine, but don't call me a hypocrite when you don't even know my position. Geez.

[gamefreak]

No, and stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that you said you wanted higher wages? No, I said you can't have high wages and low prices.

I'm not nessasarily saying that they don't abuse workers because it's not in their best interests, I'm simplying saying it. I think it's a mixture of many things; among them that, a mostly competent workforce, and the law :)

You said I can't have my pie and eat it too. You don't know what my pie is!

All I'm saying is that the dollar needs strengthening, and I can see the weakness already affecting me. If you disagree fine, but don't call me a hypocrite when you don't even know my position. Geez.

So then what is your stance on minimum wage and healthcare?

[camoor]

No, and stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that you said you wanted higher wages? No, I said you can't have high wages and low prices.

I'm not nessasarily saying that they don't abuse workers because it's not in their best interests, I'm simplying saying it. I think it's a mixture of many things; among them that, a mostly competent workforce, and the law :)

You said I can't have my pie and eat it too. You don't know what my pie is!

All I'm saying is that the dollar needs strengthening, and I can see the weakness already affecting me. If you disagree fine, but don't call me a hypocrite when you don't even know my position. Geez.

So then what is your stance on minimum wage and healthcare?

Well I do know that trial lawyers, drug companies, and the insurance companies have ruined affordable health care in this country. Drug companies plead poverty while taking free US government research and never missing a profitable quarter. Trial lawyers increase their bankrolls by drumming up sympathy for patients with medical problems, rather then only focusing on the real industry malpractice. The bureaucratic medical and health insurance companies have some of the most antiquated methods of doing business (snail mail in this day and age?) and they pass the additional costs onto the rest of us. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine in an effort to avoid a career ending lawsuit.

It really depresses me when I think of the damage that this administration has done by unconditionally protecting the fantastic profits being made by drug companies and blocking government funds from supporting effective stem cell research. It's all very anti-capitalistic and scientifically regressive. Goverment money should not be pumped into a system where drug prices are artificially inflated to insure maximum profitability for a corporation. The morality of scientific endeavors should be evaluated by philisophical ethics, not the religious tenets of a particular Christian sect.

The list goes on:
All of Bush's AIDS programs must focus on abstinence and make no mention of condoms;
The administration's (male) health advisor advises women with bad menstral cramps to pray to Jesus

Sure, Edwards was a trial lawyer who ran on the other ticket. But could he, or anyone, really have done worse then Bush?

As for minimum wage, I do believe that people should be paid a fair wage, but I do not have all the facts necessary to judge the current minimum.

[bmulligan]

I'm not one of these pundits that religiously follows a party line.

Unfortunately your subconcious betrays you at every turn. Just about every tidbit of "truth" spewing from your hands reads like a democratic talking points memo.

I never said that a majority of Christian Conservatives want to torture homosexuals, they just want keep them out of sight and marginalize their rights much like the segregationists did with the african americans in the 1960s. The majority of conservatives find little fault with the radical wing's position. That's what I mean by bigotry.

Unlike your bigotry of the wealthy and your willingness to marginalize their rights to property and the freedom to do with it as they see fit.

It really depresses me when I think of the damage that this administration has done by unconditionally protecting the fantastic profits being made by drug companies and blocking government funds from supporting effective stem cell research. It's all very anti-capitalistic and scientifically regressive. Goverment money should not be pumped into a system where drug prices are artificially inflated to insure maximum profitability for a corporation. The morality of scientific endeavors should be evaluated by philisophical ethics, not the religious tenets of a particular Christian sect.

You are a walking contradiction. First you fault the drug companies for relying on government research for profit (which they don't), then fault the government for not spending on stem cell research. What's it going to be? And who knows or can define "effective" stem-cell research? Obviously you are not in a position to judge as of yet, nor is anyone else. All this government money could be shit down a sink hole for all we know so why not let PRIVATE companies waste their money on it instead of forcing ME to. Did you know that the Bush administration is the first to actually FUND stem cell research of existing embryos? Clinton did not.

You haven't specifically stated your position on minimum wage, but your claim you cannot judge the current level reveals the fact that you already believe in the principle to artifically inflate wages. Since that is the case, then how can you not also believe in artifically inflating drug prices? Have you even read a drug company's balance sheet? Do you even know the $$ it takes to develop a drug, test it, and get it approved by the FDA? Somehow I think you just like to talk out your rear because the front doesn't know shit like the back end does.

And the last words of camoorian wisdom to proove my point of you being a walking donkey:

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

but wait, there's more:

I think you can read between the lines when I say moral values. As in, "bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".

I'd like to build some friendship capital with the nations around the world.

Oh yeah, and the cure for AIDS is in the Rain Forrest somewhere. We need someone to go and find it. Can we book you a flight or just buy you a new pair of Birkenstocks and a map?

[camoor]

I'm not one of these pundits that religiously follows a party line.

Unfortunately your subconcious betrays you at every turn. Just about every tidbit of "truth" spewing from your hands reads like a democratic talking points memo.

I never said that a majority of Christian Conservatives want to torture homosexuals, they just want keep them out of sight and marginalize their rights much like the segregationists did with the african americans in the 1960s. The majority of conservatives find little fault with the radical wing's position. That's what I mean by bigotry.

Unlike your bigotry of the wealthy and your willingness to marginalize their rights to property and the freedom to do with it as they see fit.

It really depresses me when I think of the damage that this administration has done by unconditionally protecting the fantastic profits being made by drug companies and blocking government funds from supporting effective stem cell research. It's all very anti-capitalistic and scientifically regressive. Goverment money should not be pumped into a system where drug prices are artificially inflated to insure maximum profitability for a corporation. The morality of scientific endeavors should be evaluated by philisophical ethics, not the religious tenets of a particular Christian sect.

You are a walking contradiction. First you fault the drug companies for relying on government research for profit (which they don't), then fault the government for not spending on stem cell research. What's it going to be? And who knows or can define "effective" stem-cell research? Obviously you are not in a position to judge as of yet, nor is anyone else. All this government money could be shit down a sink hole for all we know so why not let PRIVATE companies waste their money on it instead of forcing ME to. Did you know that the Bush administration is the first to actually FUND stem cell research of existing embryos? Clinton did not.

You haven't specifically stated your position on minimum wage, but your claim you cannot judge the current level reveals the fact that you already believe in the principle to artifically inflate wages. Since that is the case, then how can you not also believe in artifically inflating drug prices? Have you even read a drug company's balance sheet? Do you even know the $$ it takes to develop a drug, test it, and get it approved by the FDA? Somehow I think you just like to talk out your rear because the front doesn't know shit like the back end does.

And the last words of camoorian wisdom to proove my point of you being a walking donkey:

It would be nice if the majority thought of issues such as "the enviornment" and "world opinion", but the reality is that most people simply follow the almighty dollar.

but wait, there's more:

I think you can read between the lines when I say moral values. As in, "bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".

I'd like to build some friendship capital with the nations around the world.

Oh yeah, and the cure for AIDS is in the Rain Forrest somewhere. We need someone to go and find it. Can we book you a flight or just buy you a new pair of Birkenstocks and a map?

Bigotry of the wealthy? :rofl:

Bmulligan, you criticize me for not backing up my claims with statistics and then you completely run off a bunch of half-truths that are just rhetoric.

I may not have personally crunched the figures, but it doesn't take a genius to recognize that a drug company that maintains a perfect profit record on one hand and pleads poverty to the government on the other is lying to somebody.

Bush is not funding stem cells for religious reasons. I'd like the research scientists to advise us on which medical technology deserves goverment funding. If a majority of them say that stem-cell research is not worthwhile, then I'll accept that gladly, but I've read many of them stating that this will be the medical technology of the future.

As for preventing AIDS, do you really think people are going to listen to an abstinence and monogomy lecture and lay off sex because some advertising told them to do it? C'mon man, THINK.

You're so desperate to turn this into a "view from the left", "view from the right" game, and I have to ask why. Does it make you feel better to picture me as a tie-dye hippie out of touch with reality? Do you get a feeling of fear in your stomach if you ever secretly disagree with your conservative talk-show heroes or friends?

Listen, I know it probably sucks for you that your overly optimistic post about corporations got such a negative response, but don't try and turn this into a conservatives vs liberals thing. I was just answering gamefreak's questions about my personal opinions (and I never claimed that I have a stranglehold on the truth). I just want to argue the positions, in the future let's leave the name calling, pigeon holing, and party bashing at the front door.

[bmulligan]

Bigotry is bigotry. Racism is racism. Classism also works boths ways when your prejudices cloud your judgement. I'm not criticizing you for lack of statistics. I'm criticizing you for lack of consistancy or any adherence to logic.

I may not have personally crunched the figures...
Of course you haven't. you rely on the heresay of all others to come before you.

Nor can you give full truths...

Bush is not funding stem cells for religious reasons. I'd like the research scientists to advise us on which medical technology deserves goverment funding. If a majority of them say that stem-cell research is not worthwhile, then I'll accept that gladly, but I've read many of them stating that this will be the medical technology of the future.

Bush IS funding stem cell research, it is limited to existing lines. Another of your half-truths. And if "scientists" agree that this is the future, then let them fund it along with their sponsors. If it is truly panecea, then a lot of money stands to be made and it is a worthy investment for the medical industries, not the government.

I couldn't care less whether my original post on corporate ass kissing was well received. It was not "overly optimistic". Perhaps facetiousness is just too hard to convey by the written word. The point was that people like you espouse the demonizing the corporate and the rich while basking in a standard of living made possible by these very same people. You are a walking contradiction.


...but don't try and turn this into a conservatives vs liberals thing.

I haven't. Your assault on the wealthy corporate world and Bush already turned this into a left-right 'thing'. Corporate bashing is so vogue in your circle of faith that you take it as a given in every statement you make.. I won't argue that there are no bad corporations. Of course there are. There are also bad people, bad groups, bad dogs, and bad movies in this world. What you neglect to mention is your responsibility in the matter and the fact that WE give those evil corps their power, not Bush, Cheney, or rich angry white men. It's not fear rumbling in my stomach about your break from reality, it's nausea.

(and I never claimed that I have a stranglehold on the truth). I just want to argue the positions, in the future let's leave the name calling, pigeon holing, and party bashing at the front door.

Your statements of "fact" illustrate your claim to truth. And lets get this straight, I'm not bashing your party- I'm bashing YOU and your corrupt incongruent philosophy.

[gamefreak]

Bush isn't funding stem cell research for ethical reasons which his religion influences. Quite a difference. Most every religion has something to say about ethics if you're willing to listen.

[camoor]

Let's just say it would be pretty ironic if I was bigoted against the rich, How could I vote for someone like Kerry? :lol:

"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."
- Warren Buffet

Warren doesn't mean this in a good way.

As for stem cell research, Bush is trying to have it all. His position on stem cells would be tantamount to saying "I'll fund the advancement of aviation, but scientists can only use the Wright Brother's plane" It's a bait-and-switch that swindles the voters who support it.

Stem Cell Link (http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/08/10/stem_cell/index.html)

It's not fear rumbling in my stomach about your break from reality, it's nausea...I'm bashing YOU and your corrupt incongruent philosophy.

Take a timeout to calm down.

[bmulligan]

Let's just say it would be pretty ironic if I was bigoted against the rich, How could I vote for someone like Kerry?

Not ironic, just another example of a contradiction.


As for stem cell research, Bush is trying to have it all. His position on stem cells would be tantamount to saying "I'll fund the advancement of aviation, but scientists can only use the Wright Brother's plane" It's a bait-and-switch that swindles the voters who support it.

This is a horrible analogy and the article cited has nothing to do with the technology involved, only the contradiction in Bush's policy. He's not limiting fire building research to two dry sticks. A better analogy would be this: Bush is against the killing of animals for drug test research, but says it's okay to kill the ones that are already in captivity. In addition, your article accepts the fact that funding IS being given to existing lines, negating your statement (and others') that Bush is blocking (all) stem cell research.

I agree that Bush's reasoning is completely contradictory and I completely agree with your cited article. Frankly, I am in favor of all stem cell research, just not government funded research. We all know how efficient the government is in ANY endeavor and the private sector can do most things better, faster, and cheaper- especially when the potential for profit exists.

The government, as you love to point out, is run by those evil corporations and rich people. So why would we want them to fund stem cell research and dish out the money and the findings to their favorite corporate backers ? Government already plays favorites; we all accept this. But how can you accept the government as corrupt on one hand and the well of generosity and fairness on the other? You can't. I'd like to keep the government out of most things because they tend to fuck it up royally in the end, and us too.

[dtcarson]

Your opinion does matter.
Except where government is involved [as with the land line phone companies and cable], there are very few monopolies or near-monopolies. You can always 'vote with your dollars' if you don't like a corporation.

"I'd like to know of one ceo or president who ever decided to build, start or join a corporation to help the average person instead of themselves or their own family."

hmm
Bill and Melinda Gates have donated $50 million to support a new Malaria Vaccine Initiative.
Bill Gates donation of U.S. $25 million for biofortification - breeding crops with higher levels of micronutrients
Over the next five years the Gates Library Foundation will donate $200 million toward computers and Net connections for thousands of libraries, especially the needier ones. And Microsoft will chip in another $200 million in software donations

Three quick examples from one major capitalist. I won't deny that some CEOs are crooks, and some are very selfish; but to say they all are is deserving of as much flame as any other bigotry.

""bigotry against homosexuals" = "moral values".
Yet the 'Moral Values' crowd are the ones who allegedly helped re-elect Bush.
Yet the 'Ban Same-Sex Marriage' measures passed with ranges of 57% all the way up to 86%, which in almost every case was much much greater than Bush's margin [if any], for instance, Michigan--Kerry won it with 2,475,xxx votes/51%, and the amendment to ban passed with 2,690,819, 59%. Even if every Bush supporter voted for it, some Kerry/Nader/other supporters had to as well.
To say 'against gay marriage' is the sole province of 'moral values Bush voters' is either blindness, willful ignorance of the facts, or simply more namecalling and bigotry.

And if CEOs of Big Evil Businesses are giving money to Republicans so they can wreak their evil, don't worry, the Democrats have got their pet lobby.
"hows that from January 1, 1997 until October 31, 1999, plaintiffs’ lawyers paid out nearly $18.7 million in political contributions. Of that amount, over $13 million was hard money available to be spent directly by candidates. The vast majority of these funds went to Democratic campaigns or Democratic-leaning political action committees.

"The massive volume of money flowing from trial lawyers into the political process should sound alarms for the public," Institute President Jim Wootton said. "It’s obvious that trial lawyer contributions are aimed at preventing common-sense changes to our out-of-control civil legal system.""

Side note: Anyone remember that website that shows political donations, by candidate and business/lobby type? Not the person-specific one, but the 'big picture' one....I can't remember it.....

[camoor]

Bmulligan, what the heck are you talking about?

As far as science goes, the Wright brothers analogy is well founded (I have no idea where your whole animals in captivity issue is coming from). As far as morality is concerned, the embryos being used are not fertelized, in that way it's like using sperm for research. There really isn't a moral issue, I'd be laughing if people weren't dying from this idiotic decision.

I think that the Bush administration sides too many times with the corporations, however I have not said that the Bush administration is corrupted by corporate interests. I think the Haliburton ties need to be looked into, but this is the only evidence of corruption in this administration that I have seen.

Even if the Bush administration was corrupted, many other parts of the government could be left untainted. It is a pretty big government, I'd be no hypocrite for saying this.

Instead, my position is that Bush supports the corporations at the expense of the enviornment and the poor/middle class. Go ahead and call me a sandal-wearing hippie, personally I find the tactics of bullies and fear mongerers to be pretty lame.

[camoor]

Give me a break on the gay marriage issue. Bush won more votes because of his stance here. People use the codename "moral values" to talk about it. Yes, moral values include more then gay marriage, however gay marriage is the controversial elephant in the room.

[Quackzilla]

Surprise, surprise. I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather. Why, you would almost think that the Republican party was the party of big business, putting corporate interests ahead of human beings, then using the whole 'We love Jesus' thing to disguise that. Nah...

What's really showing is that, in the top 5 Republican backers, most of them gave EVERYTHING to the Republicans, and the others barely gave a token amount to the Democrats. The top 5 Democrat backers, though, were almost equally split between the two parties, barely gaving anything more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Yes those big, bad, dirty, greedy corporate type care nothing for human beings. All the jobs they create, all the families they help feed, all the standards of living they help raise is all just very, very bad for all of us.

Corporate interests and human interests are one and the same; if you believe in working and earning a living, that is. If you believe in handouts, government mandated charity, and communism, then I guess the Democratic party or the green party are your parties of chioce.

Thank you corporate america for my TV. Thank you for my computer, my PS2, my flushing toilet, electric light, my car, my house, the hospital my son was born in, the medical technology that keeps us relatively disease free. Thank you for allowing us a life with more free time to post on message boards instead of chopping wood for 8 hours a day to survive through the winter. More free time to play games and listen to music instead of tending the fields or stalking animals for sustinence.

Thank you corporations. You make my quality of life better than most kings from a mere century ago. Thank you corporate society, for having the vision, the fortitude, and for taking the risk to make all our lives better. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, they know not of which they speak.

Wal-Mart

I just nullified your argument.

[gamefreak]

Give me a break on the gay marriage issue. Bush won more votes because of his stance here. People use the codename "moral values" to talk about it. Yes, moral values include more then gay marriage, however gay marriage is the controversial elephant in the room.

My gut reaction is to say he won more votes here because he HAD a stance. IIRC Kerry was at first a gay-activst type person and he suddenly started saying "Oh no. We're not for gay marriages. But..." during the debates.

Edit: And Walmart _creates_ jobs? Uh... I think you said it best in your other post Quack:

"There are 2 Wal-Marts in my area and they are putting stores out of business.

The K-Mart went down pretty fast, and Target is in the crosshairs."

[Drocket]

My gut reaction is to say he won more votes here because he HAD a stance. IIRC Kerry was at first a gay-activst type person and he suddenly started saying "Oh no. We're not for gay marriages. But..." during the debates.
The funny thing is that Bush and Kerry's official stance was actually the same: they're both against gay marriage, but for civil unions. Of course, Bush is lying through his teeth about his stance: how else do you explain his support of a Constitutional amendment that pretty much explicitly forbids civil unions? Well, ok, stupidity, I guess that's a given...

[bmulligan]

The funny thing is that Bush and Kerry's official stance was actually the same: they're both against gay marriage, but for civil unions. Of course, Bush is lying through his teeth about his stance: how else do you explain his support of a Constitutional amendment that pretty much explicitly forbids civil unions? Well, ok, stupidity, I guess that's a given...

Stupidity? Doubtful. Some would call it shrewd. Especially since many believe Bush won the election on "moral values". Guess he was smarter than you are.

Even if the Bush administration was corrupted, many other parts of the government could be left untainted. It is a pretty big government, I'd be no hypocrite for saying this.

Now you're just being naive. And then you go on to contradict yourself again:

I have not said that the Bush administration is corrupted by corporate interests.

and then completly invalidate that stament with these:

I think that the Bush administration sides too many times with the corporations

I think the Haliburton ties need to be looked into, but this is the only evidence of corruption in this administration that I have seen.

Instead, my position is that Bush supports the corporations at the expense of the enviornment and the poor/middle class.

Just stop already, you are forcing me towards a gin and tonic.

[camoor]

I don't think the Bush administration is fully corrupted yet. However I fully admit that there is a good chance that I am wrong on this score. After all, the President is not an honest man. (yes Bmulligan, you can be dishonest without being corrupt. You see, all these adjectives, they are not synonyms of "good" and "evil", they mean more then that. A dishonest man may be corrupt. A corrupt man is honest. See how it works?)

Just stop already, you are forcing me towards a gin and tonic.

Yeah, why don't you go hide in your troubles in booze just like our leader did for most of his adult life.

[bmulligan]

There is no such think as being fully or partially corrupt. That's like being a little bit pregnant. You either have a moral code and adhere to it, or you don't.

...A dishonest man may be corrupt. A corrupt man is honest.

...You see, all these adjectives, they are not synonyms of "good" and "evil",

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Dishonesty is a corruption of moral value, there is no word game you can play to make it not so. The problem is that you see them as being morally reletive. The "good" and "evil" adjectives ARE synonymous to the discussion of morals and corruption; they are EXACTLY that, no more, no less.

[bmulligan]

And you should never refer to alcohol as booze. Drinking is an art, like the practice of medicine and should be given more respect. You can tell a lot about a man by the manner he fixes a drink, what he drinks, and how he holds his liquor.

By the way, I consider Bush to be the president, not "this" president, and he is not my leader. A revolution was fought twice in the first 40 years of our country's existence for the right of self determination, not the right to be led by others.

[camoor]

There is no such think as being fully or partially corrupt. That's like being a little bit pregnant. You either have a moral code and adhere to it, or you don't.

...A dishonest man may be corrupt. A corrupt man is honest.

...You see, all these adjectives, they are not synonyms of "good" and "evil",

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Dishonesty is a corruption of moral value, there is no word game you can play to make it not so. The problem is that you see them as being morally reletive. The "good" and "evil" adjectives ARE synonymous to the discussion of morals and corruption; they are EXACTLY that, no more, no less.

Ahh yes the black and white thinker. A politician is either pure as the driven snow, or he is an utter waste, corrupt beyond redemption!

Grow a brain.

[bmulligan]

Nobody said anything about redemption. Just reality and the definition of what corruption is. Some things ARE black and white, you seem to be too afraid to realize them for what they are and fear truth. Most of the problem with our society today is that we don't look at our definitions. It's called "examining our principles" or "defining terms".

You think my definitions are simplistic, but they are not. It can be difficult to see their truths and re-examine them on a regular basis. Your principles are the easy way out; allowing what feels good at the moment or whim, public opinion, or perception of what the common good may or may not be at any given time. I call that philosophy of the lazy. I have a brain, as do you. All I'm suggesting is that you use it and stop taking the easy way out.

[Drocket]

Stupidity? Doubtful. Some would call it shrewd. Especially since many believe Bush won the election on "moral values". Guess he was smarter than you are.
Possibly. I'm still not completely certain whether Bush is a well-meaning idiot, or whether he's brilliant and evil to the core. I'm quite certain that its either one or the other, though. Every time I come close to deciding on one of the other, though, he invariably does something that makes me re-evaluate it...

[bmulligan]

Stupidity? Doubtful. Some would call it shrewd. Especially since many believe Bush won the election on "moral values". Guess he was smarter than you are.
Possibly. I'm still not completely certain whether Bush is a well-meaning idiot, or whether he's brilliant and evil to the core. I'm quite certain that its either one or the other, though. Every time I come close to deciding on one of the other, though, he invariably does something that makes me re-evaluate it...

I think the exact same thing almost every time he openes his mouth.

[camoor]

bmulligan, you should read "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill. His philosophy, in which the morality of our actions is judged by their contribution to the happiness of people, has been very influential in western society.

There is no black and white. It doesn't exist. Everything is imperfect, and everything must be evaluated as a shade of grey. This is not easy, in fact true Utilitarians must evaluate and reevaluate based on emerging facts to find the best position.

Most of the problem with our society today is that we don't look at our definitions. It's called "examining our principles" or "defining terms".

Actually...

"Examining our principles" is a phrase that means that a person is examining the morality that they live by and that they judge others by.

"Defining terms" is a phrase that means a person is giving a specific meaning or set of meanings to a word.

A chief problem with American society today is that many citizens no longer know how to understand or articulate a meaningful position due to their limited grasp of the English language.

[bmulligan]

There is no black and white. It doesn't exist. Everything is imperfect, and everything must be evaluated as a shade of grey. This is not easy, in fact true Utilitarians must evaluate and reevaluate based on emerging facts to find the best position.


Translation: There are no absolutes.

You do understand that your statement is a contradiction, right?

bmulligan, you should read "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill. His philosophy, in which the morality of our actions is judged by their contribution to the happiness of people, has been very influential in western society.

Just because something is influential doesn't make it a good idea. The macarena was influential, as was living la vida loca, and brittney spears.

Let's examine this one sentence further:
...in which the morality of our actions is judged by their contribution to the happiness of people

I believe you are refering to the common good? That's where the majority of people get to force the minority into submission. How does one measure happiness, exactly? Don't bother, you couldn't tell me no matter how hard you try because it's all a shade of grey.

Have to add this one also:
A chief problem with American society today is that many citizens no longer know how to understand or articulate a meaningful position due to their limited grasp of the English language.

Actually, by your logic, there are no definitions because they are always being re-evaluated based upon emerging facts. Morals and words don't matter because they don't really have any meaning to grasp. They are simply fleeting ideas in a mass of happiness...

[camoor]

Translation: There are no absolutes.

You do understand that your statement is a contradiction, right?


Cute logic trick. In the real world, there are very few absolutes. Taking an extreme case, even someone like Mussolini (98% evil) got the trains running on time.


Just because something is influential doesn't make it a good idea. The macarena was influential, as was living la vida loca, and brittney spears.


True, but when most of the leading ethical philosophers of our time consider it have a definitive influence on modern moral philosophy, it adds a certain gravitas to the work.

Those songs have nothing to do with the conversation. They were not influential, popular maybe, but they have no lasting impact on the arts.


Let's examine this one sentence further:
...in which the morality of our actions is judged by their contribution to the happiness of people

I believe you are refering to the common good? That's where the majority of people get to force the minority into submission. How does one measure happiness, exactly? Don't bother, you couldn't tell me no matter how hard you try because it's all a shade of grey.

I paraphrased the philosophy to fit it into one sentence, and you highlighted one of the chief arguements used against it. However the arguement can be negated, I believe. Take slavery, is this practice OK if it makes a majority happier? The answer would be no in my opinion because it makes the minority so unhappy that their misery negates any positive benefits that the majority enjoyed. In addition it causes things like slave revolts which add to the misery of everybody, minority and majority alike.

The Utilitarian philosophy provides us with a useful tool in making ethical decisions. In evaluating morality, it takes into account the entire result of our decisions and actions. Thinking in this way gives one the ability to see through polar black/white, good/evil punditry, and make informed decisions with a clear perspective.

If you would like to know more about the way in which happiness is measured, I will defer you to Mill's book, which in my opinion is a must for anyone interested in moral philosophy.

[bmulligan]

Cute logic trick. In the real world, there are very few absolutes.

So which is it? First there were no absolutes, absolutely. Now there are fery few. It seems you need to learn the command of your own language.

True, but when most of the leading ethical philosophers of our time consider it have a definitive influence on modern moral philosophy, it adds a certain gravitas to the work.

Those songs have nothing to do with the conversation. They were not influential, popular maybe, but they have no lasting impact on the arts.

I really can't take anyone who uses the word "gravitas" seriously. So your claim of "leading ethical philosophers of our time" becomes even more laughable. Who cares if it is our time or Aristotles time.
Having 'contemporaries' agree on something or it being 'influential' is not a necessary condition for truth or benevolence to mankind. The examples of the songs have everything to do with the conversation as example of 'contemporary' thought.

I paraphrased the philosophy to fit it into one sentence, and you highlighted one of the chief arguements used against it. However the arguement can be negated, I believe.

Well, never having read it or had the pleasure of hearing your analysis at length, I seem to have read you like a short story.

Take slavery, is this practice OK if it makes a majority happier? The answer would be no in my opinion because it makes the minority so unhappy that their misery negates any positive benefits that the majority enjoyed. In addition it causes things like slave revolts which add to the misery of everybody, minority and majority alike.

This is armchair philosophy. You are close to something yet you can't see the forest for the trees. There ARE absolutes within your anecdote yet you don't acknowledge them. These 'positive benefits' are more than feelings or measures of happiness, or descriptions of cause and effect. They are principles of right and wrong, of freedom and slavery, black and white. It's the denial of thes principles that is the cause of misery.

I would love to hear how you think happiness is measured, not a defferal to someone elses dr. Phil philosophy.

[camoor]

Lot of splitting hairs, eh bmulligan?

So which is it?
There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.


I really can't take anyone who uses the word "gravitas" seriously.


Why, because it has more then 2 syllables?


So your claim of "leading ethical philosophers of our time" becomes even more laughable. Who cares if it is our time or Aristotles time.


John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). An influential philosopher since his philosophies were first published.


Having 'contemporaries' agree on something or it being 'influential' is not a necessary condition for truth or benevolence to mankind. The examples of the songs have everything to do with the conversation as example of 'contemporary' thought.


So for you, the opinion of the greatest philosophers since 1850 about the most important questions of mankind have as much weight as what pop song the general public most enjoys? Come on, dude.


Well, never having read it or had the pleasure of hearing your analysis at length, I seem to have read you like a short story...

This is armchair philosophy. You are close to something yet you can't see the forest for the trees. There ARE absolutes within your anecdote yet you don't acknowledge them. These 'positive benefits' are more than feelings or measures of happiness, or descriptions of cause and effect. They are principles of right and wrong, of freedom and slavery, black and white. It's the denial of thes principles that is the cause of misery.

I would love to hear how you think happiness is measured, not a defferal to someone elses dr. Phil philosophy.

This is the problem - most people think that philosophy is some intellectual pursuit, what you call "armchair philosophy" that has no bearing on their life. However it does, just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to. However how many times is a moral question a choice between clearly defined absolutes? If it was that easy we could all have a group hug and give up political debates forever.

By happiness, I mean what the Greeks call "eudaimonia", a total feeling of wellness and prosperity, I'm talking about the happiness in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Utilitarianism is a moral perspective, it is a very useful system for deciding the morality of decisions that I use every day. However it is not the be-all-and-end-all, the "Grand Unifying Theory" of ethics. I would agree that concepts such as justice and freedom are also important to consider when making moral decisions, and you can't base 100% of your decision on the Utilitarian theory, it's just not that simple (for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct). However I vehemently disagree that you can label policies in black and white terms such as "the just policy" or "the policy of freedom" based on contemporary norms (or the Judeo-Christian religions or classic philosophy or whatever source you derive your axioms of utopian societal behavior from) and thus qualify these policies as worthwhile. No, there must an analysis of the results of these policies, and utilitarianism takes those results into account. It brings the real world (and a shade of grey) into the stark black-and-white punditry often spouted by politicians trying to justify their position as the ultimate good.

Measuring the happiness of everyone your decisions will affect is a tall order, for a layman such as myself, I see it as more of a mental exercise then a mathematical formula. However I have great respect for anyone who has a system that they can easily and regularly employ, and once again I will encourage anyone truly interested to take a look at Mill's book, his organized system of measurement is an interesting and exciting exercise in thought.

And let's set the record straight, Dr. Phil is not one of the greatest philosophers of all time. JS Mill is.

[bmulligan]

So for you, the opinion of the greatest philosophers since 1850 about the most important questions of mankind have as much weight as what pop song the general public most enjoys? Come on, dude.
Well, I guess it all depends on who you believe are the greatest philosophers. And you keep interpereting the pop song analogy as literal, it was a reference to the popularity of todays passing fads with that of well thought out and established thought of historical thinkers. 1800's is still contemporary by comparison.

There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to.

you still can't come to terms wih yourself.

just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

And the court's philosophy and source of power is based on principles established in the constitution, written in black and white, but always subjest to interpretation. That pursuit of ideal interpretation of constitutional principles is the function of the court, not to change their positions based upon 'contemporary norms' or popular opinion.

You still haven't outlined how you measure happiness in others. Apparently it's too tall an order for you. Probably because you know it's impossible to do so using your changing definitions and lack of absolute anything. You're a bullshit artist, and not a very good one.

(for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct).

But by your 'philosophy' of pragmatism, if the party wants to be enslaved and derives happiness from it and this is the societal and contemporary norm, then it is morally correct. The contradictions in your mental exercises never cease. It'qs more like mental slight-of-hand.

[camoor]

Well, I guess it all depends on who you believe are the greatest philosophers. And you keep interpereting the pop song analogy as literal, it was a reference to the popularity of todays passing fads with that of well thought out and established thought of historical thinkers. 1800's is still contemporary by comparison.


Let the pop song thing go man. It didn't sound that good to begin with, trust me. Philosophy and the Pop song machine have almost nothing in common, can't you understand this?


There are very few absolutes. As in .01%. As in, there are so few absolutes, that they are insignificant when it comes to picking a system of moral philosophy.

Sure there are absolutes, because there needs to be something to compare a position to.

you still can't come to terms wih yourself.

This has always been my position, I just didn't state it clearly enough in the first post. It's consistent with everything I've said.

just look at all the influential decisions made by the Supreme Court, they use their philisophical (or unfortunately their religious) perspective to form their opinions about cases. It's the law of the land, from Brown Vs Board to Row Vs Wade we have all been affected by their decisions in one way or another.

And the court's philosophy and source of power is based on principles established in the constitution, written in black and white, but always subjest to interpretation. That pursuit of ideal interpretation of constitutional principles is the function of the court, not to change their positions based upon 'contemporary norms' or popular opinion.


Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution, and the interpretation of the constitution is where the philosophies of the justices come into play. If it was as simple as "To rule on this case, we turn to page 3, section 5 of the constitiution...", we would never have controversial decisions, or have a need to have intelligent people in the court.


You still haven't outlined how you measure happiness in others. Apparently it's too tall an order for you. Probably because you know it's impossible to do so using your changing definitions and lack of absolute anything. You're a bullshit artist, and not a very good one.

(for example if there was an extreme case, where somebody was happy to be enslaved for example, it would still not make their enslavement morally correct).

But by your 'philosophy' of pragmatism, if the party wants to be enslaved and derives happiness from it and this is the societal and contemporary norm, then it is morally correct. The contradictions in your mental exercises never cease. It'qs more like mental slight-of-hand.

Bmulligan, it's a way of evaluating moral decisions. You have to think about how your decision will affect the happiness of others to make it work. If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions. I can't teach you this over a post on the internet.

You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions. It's a good test, a "reality check" that a person can make against the principles that they live by. As I said before, I believe you can't just take it and make it the one system you use to evaluate all of your moral decisions.

My whole point was to give you another point of view, to prove to you that the world is not made up of conflicts between pure "good" and "evil" as some politicians would like us to believe. Don't you dare call me a "bullshit artist", I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source). But you won't do that, because it's much easier to turn on fox news and cheer as their pundits insert their brand of sloganism into your rigid worldview.

[bmulligan]

I now understand why they've eliminated the analogy portion of the SAT, thank you.

If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions.

I'll tell that one to the next guy who tries to mug me in NYC. While I'm beating the crap out of him for trying to steal my money, I'll ask him if he's having a fulfulling life and overall feeling of euphoria.

Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution

Name one Supreme Court case that did not involve reliance on the word or principle of constitutional law.


You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions.
I'm glad we can agree that you are a pragmatist. However, you still have not explained how to measure anything. One needs to establish an objective standard in order to measure. We call them 'rules'.

I'll ask again: How does one measure "happiness"?

Your philosophy depends on this principle and you have yet to articulate it or even address it. Add this to your acceptance of contradictory thought as consistency and I must conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source).

I've been working too hard already tring to extract information out of you, yet you'd rather defer to somone else without addressing the theory yourself. Since your actions are not creating happiness within me, you must be doing something wrong.

[camoor]

I now understand why they've eliminated the analogy portion of the SAT, thank you.


You can't be snide if you don't have a leg to stand on. You need to prove your points.


If a person doesn't think about how their decisions affect the happiness of others, they are predisposed to making poor moral decisions.

I'll tell that one to the next guy who tries to mug me in NYC. While I'm beating the crap out of him for trying to steal my money, I'll ask him if he's having a fulfulling life and overall feeling of euphoria.


Yes, and what process do you use to make your brilliant decisions, like "Wow, vigilante justice is a great idea!". Subduing your assailant is one thing, "beating the crap out of him" is not what I would call the morally correct thing to do. Yet it is what I'd expect from a thug.


Except that everything the court rules on isn't covered by the Constitution

Name one Supreme Court case that did not involve reliance on the word or principle of constitutional law.


Where does the constitution specify how to handle the issue of abortion (Row vs Wade). Specifically. Give me the exact text.

You call it a philosophy of pragmatism, and I would agree, it's a specific moral formula that measures the results of our actions.
I'm glad we can agree that you are a pragmatist. However, you still have not explained how to measure anything. One needs to establish an objective standard in order to measure. We call them 'rules'.

I'll ask again: How does one measure "happiness"?

Your philosophy depends on this principle and you have yet to articulate it or even address it. Add this to your acceptance of contradictory thought as consistency and I must conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.


To measure happiness I imagine how I will affect people, I put myself in their shoes to see how I would feel if someone performed the same action. Again, I don't think my method of measuring happiness is necessarily the best or most scientific, but this is what I do.


I'm discussing theory here, if you need help in learning how your decisions affect others, then I suggest you need to do some work (I've already pointed you to a great source).

I've been working too hard already tring to extract information out of you, yet you'd rather defer to somone else without addressing the theory yourself. Since your actions are not creating happiness within me, you must be doing something wrong.

Morality and ethics is hard work. I don't have all the answers, but I have read what the greatest thinkers have written and I have formulated my own moral code from this. I do know that life is not full of black-and-white, easily defined moral choices. My goal is not your happiness bmulligan, and morality is not all about you, you, you, it's really about doing the right thing for everybody who is affected.

[bmulligan]

Where does the constitution specify how to handle the issue of abortion (Row vs Wade). Specifically. Give me the exact text.

Apparently you do not understand the purpose of the Supreme court. You should READ the RoevWade decision, or any other supreme court opinions before commenting on something you know nothing about. Roe v wade struck down a texas statute allowing roe the right to sue in a texas court, something previously denied by texas courts.

Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.


To measure happiness I imagine how I will affect people, I put myself in their shoes to see how I would feel if someone performed the same action. Again, I don't think my method of measuring happiness is necessarily the best or most scientific, but this is what I do.

I can't argure with this. Your philosophy is completely imaginary. This explains a lot.

Morality and ethics is hard work. I don't have all the answers, but I have read what the greatest thinkers have written and I have formulated my own moral code from this. I do know that life is not full of black-and-white, easily defined moral choices.

I never said moral choices were easy , they aren't usually. Nor have I claimed these choices are Black and White, they aren't, but the principles are.

My goal is not your happiness bmulligan, and morality is not all about you, you, you, it's really about doing the right thing for everybody who is affected.

But you have spent the last 3 days arguing just the opposite. My happines IS the basis of your moral code. The happiness of others should guide your actions. I am not YOU,YOU,YOU, I am one of the others whose happiness you must consider before taking any action. Another contradiction rears it's ugly head. But luckily for you, contradiction equals continuity in your fairy tale land of make-believe.

[camoor]

Interesting about the row vs wade. Thanks for the constitutional law update (sincerely). However one still has to define what a "person" is to make this judgement. There is no clause in the constitution that specifically defines at what point this occurs.

I imagine (or think about) the happiness of others within the best of my ability to measure it. The entire process is not imaginary.

You did say something I would agree with. Moral choices are not black and white. As far as the principles being absolutes arguement, it is rather interesting but I don't personally believe in it. For example, I believe that the principle of "freedom of speech" is in general a good principle, however crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater takes the principle too far. Therefore it is a principle that should not be applied absolutely, instead it should be applied within the bounds of reason.

As far as "you" are concerned, you are only one person, and a when making a moral decision we must think about the happiness (remember happiness means total well-being) of all. Any moral philosophy that fails to take into account the well-being of all people affected is flawed in my view.

[bmulligan]

You did say something I would agree with. Moral choices are not black and white. As far as the principles being absolutes arguement, it is rather interesting but I don't personally believe in it. For example, I believe that the principle of "freedom of speech" is in general a good principle, however crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater takes the principle too far. Therefore it is a principle that should not be applied absolutely, instead it should be applied within the bounds of reason.

Freedom of speech is an absolute freedom. However, the "fire" argument does not negate the principle. Your right to yell "fire" is superceeded by others' right to their own life and property. Yelling "fire" in this situation jeapordizes these rights of other individuals, it does not invalidate the freedom of speech. Individuals' rights do not superceede all others in all situations. This is the true role of government, to protect these transgressions between individuals' rights and to judge which ones take precedence, which were violated, and which deserve compensation or punnishment.

As far as "you" are concerned, you are only one person, and a when making a moral decision we must think about the happiness (remember happiness means total well-being) of all. Any moral philosophy that fails to take into account the well-being of all people affected is flawed in my view.

"You" are an individual and part of the whole. The whole is not an autonomous body that acts with volition as one body. It is an abstract made up of individual parts, each acting as his own island of freedom (and happiness). The "all" cannot exist without the "one", so any transgression (denial of happiness) upon the one is a transgression on the "all" and vice versa. i.e., If you deny one man his rights(happiness), we all suffer the consequences.

[camoor]

However by your logic it is not an "absolute" freedom.

Absolute - complete and without restriction or qualification.

Other's rights can supercede one's freedom of speech. It is not absolute by your definition.

I believe you are talking about the "certain unalienable rights" each person possesses in your second paragraph. These rights are a fundamentally different concept from the happiness of each person. The happiness of one person may or may not carry over into another person's happiness. Just because one person is made unhappy by a decision, it does not make the decision immoral by utilitarian theory. The cumulative unhappiness must outweigh the cumulative happiness of the decision for it to be considered immoral.

In the arena of rights afforded to each person, I believe your comment holds much more truth.