Okay, I'm here to bitch and moan about politics - instead of being a shit post that goes to bitch and moan [the board] I want your honest views, critiqueings of my views, etc.

First and foremost, I'd like to say that corporatarchy sucks. It's going on in Washington all the time, and nothing can be done to stop it. Power in Washington D.C. is for sale, and all you have to do is buy it - power goes to the highest bidder. The will of the people seems to be no longer represented. Speaking of industry and control of the government, Bush proposed to sign into law acts that effect air pollution. If I remember correctly, the act was never signed into law. It's my belief that the corporations that would be affected paid our President to NOT sign the bill into effect.

Secondly, is about the FBI, SS, Homeland Security Dept, etc. It's probably true that the FBI and other federal-level agencies are trying to get as much information on every person in the country as possible. It's logical - he who knows most controls. This is wrong and immoral, not to mention, against the Constituition, if you ask me. We all have a right to be secure in our persons and in our homes, and, therefore, we should all be allowed to be free of wiretapping, phone bugs, internet monitoring, drug tests, etc. However, after capitalizing on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government is tightening it's grips. I only wish that Star Wars could be true with one line Princess Leia said: 'Governor Tarkan, the closer you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.'

And, with restrictions that the federal government is trying to impose that allow monitoring of the internet use by certain/specific individuals, as well as the general public, it seems that sites like TOTSE will slowly fade away. The government wants to prevent knowledge from spreading - after all, knowledge is information. The ability to share information is freedom. Restricting that freedom allows tighter controls on the lives' of every person - why in the hell should we submit to this?

Furthermore, it seems to me that the government (correct me if I'm wrong) at the federal level cannot be changed by a referendum. Is it just me, or is that a measure to prevent the ordinary citizen from upsetting the federal government?

I think that's all for now. Just my political opinions.

What's with everyones hatred of corporations? Is it because the top shits running it make lots of money? Private donors give a lot to Washington too..why single out corporations? Most of them besides Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and AOL are honest, and make money. I think a lot of spoiled anti-authority punks hate them because they are sucessful...

Just my 2 cents

quote:

---

What's with everyones hatred of corporations?

---

The coorporations represent the Elite Class that the socialists fight against. Plus, their methods of making money - mass comercials, invasion of privacy, exploitation - aren't very liked by everyone.


[This message has been edited by hp (edited 01-05-2003).]

Why do you even let this shit bother you? You can't change it and neither can any ONE person... so chill, have a bowl

Corporations - because they are comprised of a variety of leaders, with differing philosophies - manifest themselves in the form of mindless and secular machines, that usurp our souls, in the process of doing business.

Take Wal-Mart for example, Wal-Mart's success is derived from the philosophy of size-conquers-all. As the Wal-Mart slime oozes across the country, mom-and-pop stores, as well as regional chains, succumb to their dominance of the market. The common joke of a career path culminating in the position of "Wal-Mart Greeter" is testimony to it's negative effect on society. Low prices; low wages; shit on the shelves, what's not to be reviled about Wal-Mart? What's to be admired about a department-store meglomaniac?

If you owned a few thousdand shares you wouldn't be jealous anymore =)

Lets be right here, corporate and private donations to certain parties are effectively a bribe.

If say the Republicans gain office thanks to large donations from say Exxon Mobil, they are then almost obliged to tend the the will of Exxon MObil, by say invading an oil rich country, or pulling out of the Kyoto Agreement/drilling in ALaska.

If for example, sponsorship was banned - or campaign spending was limited. The parties would be forced to satisfy the masses and not the minority.

And what do they actually do for all this money? I've heard they do lots of hard work but I can't see it. Does a CEO do more work than a Kindergarten teacher? Or a Doctor? And exactly how intelligent do you need to be? Do you need to memorise the components of every chemical compound? So why do they earn so much?

It seems to me to just be wrong that someone so lazy should have so many benefits. and how frankly evil acts can be condoned if committed by a corporation in the name of profit. If I took apart someone's house to sell the bricks, I'd have no leg to stand on, but that is what American logging corporations do (not exactly) and are condoned?

quote:

---

Take Wal-Mart for example, Wal-Mart's success is derived from the philosophy of size-conquers-all. As the Wal-Mart slime oozes across the country, mom-and-pop stores, as well as regional chains, succumb to their dominance of the market. The common joke of a career path culminating in the position of "Wal-Mart Greeter" is testimony to it's negative effect on society. Low prices; low wages; shit on the shelves, what's not to be reviled about Wal-Mart? What's to be admired about a department-store meglomaniac?

---

Wal-mart is able to utilize economies of scale. What this means is that since they are able to buy in bulk, they are able to save money, the same principle behind Costco. Because Wal-Mart is able to save money, they are able to offer the same product cheaper. I don't know about the rest of you, but this makes me happy. I like to pay less for my goods. Size will always be an advantage because economies of scale can be exploited. However, the larger a business is, the harder it is to respond to localized opportunities. Small business are nimble.

You complain about low prices?

You complain about low wages? I hope you know how wages are determined. Despite what you may think, if your services are not valuable you will not be able to demand top dollar for them.

You complain about shit on the shelves? If there was no demand for the shit, the stores would collapse. Wal-mart serves its clientel quite well. If you want fancy and expensive shit, go to the sharper image or some other place.

quote:

---

If for example, sponsorship was banned - or campaign spending was limited. The parties would be forced to satisfy the masses and not the minority.

---

How can you, or anyone else, determine how I am to spend MY own money. The issue here is that the government has no right to determine what i do with my money.

quote:

---

And what do they actually do for all this money? I've heard they do lots of hard work but I can't see it. Does a CEO do more work than a Kindergarten teacher? Or a Doctor?

---

I have already explained to you that in Commie terms, CEO= Central Planner. Don't bag on the position that in YOUR society determines prosperity.

quote:

---

I took apart someone's house to sell the bricks, I'd have no leg to stand on, but that is what American logging corporations do (not exactly) and are condoned?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
How can you, or anyone else, determine how I am to spend MY own money. The issue here is that the government has no right to determine what i do with my money.

---

Do you object to not being able to spend money on nuclear material, drugs, anthrax? How about your right to buy slaves? Miss that?

American Law prevents non-citizens from spending money on political campaigns in america. Do you agree with this?

And the corollary to your argument is that the government can tell me who I give or donate money to? That is absolute crap. Even if you restrict the money that is donated to an individuals campaign, I could still form an organization to collect money and run ads and distribute flyers. What this in esscence boils down to is an attack on the first ammendment.

I was making no argument about how you should be stopped from spending your money. Just that your society already stops people spending money in ways it doesn't want. Where to draw the line would require far greater knowledge of me about voting behaviour and the human psyche.

Would you mind if I came over and spend money subverting your democracy, flyering etc? Admittedly it would help your advertising industry

Or let me put is a different way.

Lets say Bill Gates gets hit on the head and when he wakes up is devoted communist.

Would you want him to be able to use his immense wealth to spread communism and communist propaganda that urged people to rise up and overthrow the government? Would you respect his right to the freedom of speech? Bear in mind that that is all he is doing no gun running no nothing. Just bombarding you with propaganda so that during the super bowl his smiling face comes on and tells you all about how great Cuba is and how wonderful your life would be if you were under a communist government. With chuckstone by his side....

Proposing a violent overthrow of the government is not protected by the first ammendment. That is a violation of the clear and present danger clause.

The problem with having the government legislating what is appropriate speech and what is not, is that effectively, what ever office is assigned this task, has in esscenece, become the thought-police. I do not trusts the government to decide for me what is appropriate and what is not. You are arguing that they should have the freedom to censor "distasteful subjects," but immense power is given to whoever determines what distasteful is.

Okay change the violent revolution, to voting for a newly created communist party that will privatise lots of things. Or a good example in pre-nazi germany if you knew what he was going to do and you had the power would you allow Hitler to be able speak freely? Admittedly the best thing to do in this situation is a bullet in the brain, but that is just denying the first ammendmant rights with extreme prejudice.

Restricting freedom of speech is dangerous I grant you that, and I would not do it lightly, perhaps by a referendum? What do you think of the DMCA, that restricts cryptographers ability to discus his research (if it is about a way of overcoming a comercial encryption technique). Now that is an example of the bad influence of corporations on Governments. We have a similar thing known as the eucd but there might be opt out clauses that allows researchers to discuss research.

I think you are jealous of CEO's because they are rich...if you were CEO of WalMart you wouldn't be bitching.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
I think you are jealous of CEO's because they are rich...if you were CEO of WalMart you wouldn't be bitching.

---

Actaully I would. HAven't you heard? Walmart is about to go under. ALot of their stores closed up where I live.

You stupid fucking communist... Chucky, the corporations don't elect people. They can give money until their wallets run dry, but it's still the American people that have to go out and vote. If they don't like a guy, they don't have to vote for him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Proposing a violent overthrow of the government is not protected by the first ammendment. That is a violation of the clear and present danger clause.

The problem with having the government legislating what is appropriate speech and what is not, is that effectively, what ever office is assigned this task, has in esscenece, become the thought-police. I do not trusts the government to decide for me what is appropriate and what is not. You are arguing that they should have the freedom to censor "distasteful subjects," but immense power is given to whoever determines what distasteful is.

---

Actually, it is the people's right and duty to overthrow oppresive governments. However, I do not see the US as being oppresive just yet. Now, if John Poindexter and John Ashcroft are appointed the almighty, dictatorial Johnheads then we will have a situation.

BTW, I oppose any form of mandated censorship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gombowlzombie:
Actaully I would. HAven't you heard? Walmart is about to go under. ALot of their stores closed up where I live.

---

Your town is not a microcosm of Wallmarts industry. Their stock was kicking ass until our latest slump, your must have confused them with Waldoors, K-Mart, and RiteAid.

A Dunkin Donuts closed in my area recently. Are they going bankrupt?

quote:

---

American Law prevents non-citizens from spending money on political campaigns in america. Do you agree with this?

---

Disagree. Ever hear about foreign investments in American corporations, or foreign investments in Washington D.C.? Control of Washington DC, and, ultimately, the country, goes to the highest bidder. Oftentimes, foreigners, and more specifically, the Japanese - the Japanese own more monetarily valued-things and companies than almost every other foreign nation combined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whazat:
Or let me put is a different way.

Lets say Bill Gates gets hit on the head and when he wakes up is devoted communist.

Would you want him to be able to use his immense wealth to spread communism and communist propaganda that urged people to rise up and overthrow the government? Would you respect his right to the freedom of speech? Bear in mind that that is all he is doing no gun running no nothing. Just bombarding you with propaganda so that during the super bowl his smiling face comes on and tells you all about how great Cuba is and how wonderful your life would be if you were under a communist government. With chuckstone by his side....

---

Legally, Bill Gates wouldn't be allowed to spread propoganda to overthrow the country - that is not allowed by the first amendment. The line is drawn between talking about how things could go about, and planning on how you will actually do that - often called 'conspiracy'