Politicians need campaign contributions in the next two years, so they will be threatening Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry. The industry will hem and haw, pony up some cash, and the restrictions will be watered down so as not to hurt anyone's profit margins.
Look, Joe Lieberman is pushing this - he's concerned about violent video games, but he gets a stiffy thinking about sending American kids off to war. Ignore the rhetoric and follow the money.
Someone finally said it. When I was 15, oh so many years ago, the neighborhood fathers would have been much happier if I had stayed inside and played violent video games.
People saying that we need to protect teenagers from violent and sexy video games are crazy. Don't you remember being a teenager? Do you know any now?
"Because then you can enjoy this "product" without paying the cost. You did NOT purchase the title to "own" or "possess" such product. The product belongs to RIAA, sad to say."
Okay, fine, then why don't they sue me for "Unauthorized Enjoyment". God Damn us all when we need a license for that.
Every once in a while, I take my acoustic guitar over to the local bar and play a few songs, some "original" songs that I wrote, and some covers. I *never* pay royalties for singing those songs, and I do get compensated (mostly in beer).
I believe that I need to pay a royalty for a public performance of those songs. I guess that means I'm a dirty pirate, huh?
An RIAA "artist" takes a chord progression and melody that's been "written" and recorded over and over again, and then RIAA sues someone for copying it? Ridiculous.
Remember when George Harrison was convicted of "copyright infringment" for the song, "My Sweet Lord" - it had the chord progression and melody of an older song, "He's So Fine". The judge ruled that if every 7th note was the same, it could be copyright infringment.
Remember when John Fogerty (the former lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival) was sued for sounding like himself? The record company claimed that they owned the "sound" of CCR, and John Fogerty's solo album sounded like, well, himself. How can anyone take this crap seriously?
If I never buy CDs, and I copy music from my friend who does buy CDs, what has the RIAA lost? Nothing. So how is it stealing?
The fact that people are seriously saying that a "corporation" can "own" a song just shows how far newspeak has progressed.
Is he going to be charged with unauthorized possession of electrons in a particual sequence? Will he be charged with attacking ships on the high seas?
The fact that Michael Jackson's company "owns" Beatles songs is theft IMO.
I wonder which people on slashdot are being paid to spread this "sharing is stealing" meme, and more importantly, how can I sign up?
*Sigh* What about "social" conservatives or "economic liberals" - the words "liberal" and "conservative" don't describe full political philosophies (or much of anything, really).
The gatekeepers in media work for advertizers (business) - in rural, socially conservative areas, the gatekeepers won't offend their advertizers (business) by running articles about how wonderful gay abortionists are, and in urban, liberal cities the gatekeepers won't offend their advertizers (business) by running articles about the need to segregate the races and why women shouldn't vote.
Here's an experiment - go to your local college and pick up a copy of Daily Communist Worker or whatever and see how many business advertizements there are. Hmmmm.
The commericial, business press is "economically conservative" - meaning, pro-business, pro-wealthy, and pro-government. Did anyone really expect it to be different?
...this will be used to spy on the political opposition, not terrorists.
The Administration already knows full well the who, what, where, why, and how of the terrorists - but they can't say too much about Saudi Arabia, because they need the ruling family in power, to protect the oil.
This is about spying on US citizens, for political and commercial reasons. I'm sure the databases will be shared with corporate America for the right amount of campaign contributions.
I wonder if this is enforceable? Can they actually change significant (or not so significant) parts of the agreement, not notify anyone, and enforce it?
I wonder is there a way that customers can make up contracts and enforce them against corporations? Something like, "by sending email to this address, you agree to A, B, C".
For some reasons, I expect that the law is pretty much in the corporations favor.
I said I wasn't going to call you names, and I don't think I did.
What kind of freedom fighters kill nuns, priests, children, organizers, electrocute people's genitals, decapitate people and display their heads, oppress women, cut off people's hands for stealing? Your "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan are basically the Taliban. You're telling me that conservatives didn't support the war against South Vietnam? I think the people of Nicaragua got the message loud and clear, vote against the wishes of the US, and the terrorist war against them continues. I would have voted as I was told as well. How you can call that election "fair" is beyond me. The only way the Contras look human is by comparing them to the worst of the Sandinistas, who were (obviously) hardly boy scouts.
The Reagan and Bush administration's record on supporting terrorists, destabilizing governments, and staging coups against Latin America is well documented, perhaps you should read the declassified documents for yourself. Clinton's record, especially in Haiti, is nearly as bad.
The number of felony conviction against defence contractors for defrauding the Pentagon number in the thousands. Pretending that these corporations don't rip off the Pentagon is ridiculous, the record is clear. The fact that many elected officials support this kind of corporate welfare is obvious, what it has to do with defending the country is less obvious. The B1 is a famous example, the Air Force didn't want it, but the Republicans pushed for it for years, at the bidding of their corporate handlers. Nothing to do with defending the country, and everything to do with corporate welfare.
Conservatives believe in a free market when it's in their interests, and when it's not, they happily jettison those principles and start shoveling the cash to their contributors. Liberals do this as well, obviously. Funny, your excuses about "civil society" are exactly the ones liberals use to demand regulation on business, welfare for the poor, and national health insurance. Only conservatives get to use that one?
In any case, any economy run on a fiat currency isn't a "free market". Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats all support our fiat currency regime. Republicans and Democrats hold hands to give tax breaks and cash handouts to companies doing business with the communist regime in China. I just wish they'd stop their BS about "free markets" since they obviously don't believe it themselves.
S&L weren't supposed to pay "competitive rates" - checking accounts weren't supposed to pay interest, remember? And why are you discounting the massive frauds? I brought up Neil Bush because he was fined by the SEC for his fraud (Silverado, in case you don't remember), and he cost taxpayers $1 billion. The 30 billion every year for 30 years is the cost of repaying insured depositors, mostly through the Resolution Trust Corporation. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the S&L scandals knows about this, I think you probably do too.
The Fed is the lender of last resort to the finance industry. They provide liquidity to banks, and they most certainly have control over the interests rates they charge for money. Volker's monetariast policies bankrupted a lot of productive busniesses in the interest of the finance industry. By the way, the reason that no one (with any political power I mean) considers themselves to be a monetarist anymore is because everyone seems to understand that the velocity of money exchange is more important than the "quantity" - as if there is such a thing.
Bush has increased taxes on all of us, regardless of the "reasons". Hmm, first you blame the Democratic controlled house, and now you blame the Democratic controlled Senate (heh, they are partisan, but the Republicans aren't?). Who will you blame when the Republicans control both houses? Bush's policies and actions have increased the taxes that everyone in America will have to pay, for generations. I hope that $300 check bought you something nice, you'll be paying for it in spades from now on.
You assume I'm a liberal? The only critics of conservatives are liberal Democrats, eh? I hardly see the difference between them, aside from the rhetoric.
The Christian right, with whom I am quite familiar, is one of Bush's strongest supporters. Surely you're not going to argue that?
I don't assume to know what's in the heart of conservatives, but I do know that they favor killing of all sorts of people, born and unborn, when it's in their interests. How people who are against abortion, yet for capital punishment, and bombing cities full of people, look in the mirror is beyond me. The National Right to Life Committee doesn't even try to pull that nonsense anymore.
Ann Coulter? Come one, talk about slandering people's motives. Have you actually read any of her columns? They speak for themself! Same with Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the rest of those gasbags. If you were to believe posters on freerepublic and the like, liberals are hell bent on destroying America and in league with the devil. Liberals can't hold a candle to the slanders and demonization of conservatives.
I am fully aware of the difference between the rhetoric of conservatives and libertarians, but the differences between their actions are slight. As far as I can tell, Libertarians just seem to be conservatives who like to smoke pot. Libertarians sure want a strong government to protect their property and enforce their contracts. I always did have trouble understanding the difference between a libertarian company town and dictatorship, aside from the dictator being called "CEO" under the libertarian regime.
It's funny that you seem to assume I'm a liberal democrat or leftist of some kind - the only critic of conservatives and libertarians must be liberals? There's no other options, huh?
"Conservatives are characterized as corrupt, oppressors, happy killers, war mongers, robbers, prudes". Right on every count. Their words and action speak for themselves. You don't have to go further than the conservative forums to see copious examples of each.
Let me finish with some of your own words. Let's see if you can pick up the irony:
"Did I ever question the motives of liberals? Did I ever say that they were evil in their intent? No! Because I recognize that people can have honest differences of opinion, and their opinions just happen to be wrong."
"Is it any wonder that I detest the left? That I consider the left in the US to no longer be merely an alternative view, but rather to be a force of malice and evil?"
In any case, we agree on the original point: FOX is a conservative network.
"Microsoft was incorporated in the state of Washington on June 25, 1981; reincorporated in the state of Delaware on September 19, 1986; and reincorporated in the state of Washington on November 1, 1993."
If it wasn't for the government incorporating Microsoft, and giving their investors immunity from their liabilities, they wouldn't be able to get away with all the things they do. Let Bill Gates make money on his own, without taxpayer help. Maybe he can move to communist China, which he seems to love so much that he makes the XBox there.
I'm not going to call you names, "rightist", "conservative", or "fascist", but let me make a few points:
1. Every year, Reagan proposed a budget that would increase the deficit and the debt.
2. Defending our country does not include arming terrorists in Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, nor does it include coups and destabilizing governments whose economic policies corporations don't like. Passing weapons programs that the military doesn't even want, in order to pay off defence contractors, is not defending our country. The B-1, $500 hammers, etc., etc. That's just corporate welfare.
Both Democrats and Republicans do this, but conservatives and libertarians won't admit they love big government - when it helps them.
3. If conservatives believe in bailing out airlines, for whatever reasons, they support corporate welfare, and they are against free markets. According to free market theory, the airlines should have gone bankrupt, if they couldn't handle a slowdown in business. There are plenty of new airlines that could have been started. I guess conservatives don't believe in free markets after all.
4. The S&Ls started having economic trouble when they started speculative investments (due to deregulation), and were defrauded by people like Neil Bush. You can equivicate all you want on this one, but the facts are clear - 30 billion a year for 30 years. Not to mention that the "conservative" Fed Chairman at the time, Paul Volker, a monetarist (like Reagan) destroyed many businesses by jacking up interest rates - but still provided plenty of liquidity to the finance industry, at attractive rates. It seems that conservatives just love a fiat currency, a hallmark of big intrusive government.
5. Bush has increased the deficit, and borrowed more money, which means that Americans will have to pay more interest. That means more taxes. He's just shifted the burden onto future generations, after he's out of office. How convienient for him. That means non-income federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes will have to be increased. Bush raised taxes on all of us.
6. The Christian right is the most loyal and solid faction of the Republican party, and call themselves conservative.
7. Interesting how conservatives care so much about women having abortions, except the kind of abortions that happen when bombing people. I guess only some fetuses count?
Now, go ahead and call me names, that seems to be standard procedure for conservative liberatarian types.
Under Reagan and Bush, and now Bush II, the size of government increased dramatically. Reagan tripled the public debt. Republicans don't like the government building hospitals, or schools. but they love big government when it comes to the defence industry, space, and corporate welfare.
Under Reagan, Bush headed the "Vice-President's Council on Competitveness", in which he handed out billions of taxpayer money to select Republican donors. That's corporate welfare.
Bush II just gave handouts and subsidies to airlines, agriculture, steel, etc. Not to mention borrowed billions from the financial industry for "tax cuts" - a total joke, considering he just increased everyone's taxes, just pushed paying for it forward a few years.
Reagan and Bush both gave billions of bailouts to the defrauded S&Ls (like Bush's brother). They've bailed the finance industry time and time again, to the tune of trillions of dollars, over the last 20 years.
Republicans want more government interference in your sex life, your reproduction, your porn and everything else. Bush wants to give tax money to churches and religious organizations.
Yes, conservatives seem to love big government, as long as it's not "socialist" - i.e., hospitals, schools, health care, welfare for single mothers, etc.
Republicans love to send the US military to "protect America's economic interests" - more corporate welfare, for the oil industry, the weapons industry, minerals, etc. By growing the military, they are increasing government.
Now FOX may not say "we love corporate welfare" but they certainly support the politicians who give it out.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like Clinton was much different. He loved corporate welfare too.
I agree, FOX is a conservative network. But they hardly admit it, they go on and on everyday about how they are "fair and balanced" - they don't have ads calling themselves "The Conservative Network". FOX News was started by a long time Republican operative, after all.
FOX news coverage is pretty much the same as all the rest - they get their stories from AP and Reuters like everyone else does, straight pro-corporate news. But their talk shows and featurs are all conservative all the time.
By "conservative", I mean pro-big government, pro-corporate welfare, and pro-war.
Since all of the companies under discussion are corporations, free market principle don't really apply. No corporations would exist without government interference, they ARE government interference.
The idea of government forcing corporations at gunpoint is ridiculous. Corporations are artifical legal entities set up by the government, and their owners are granted special immunity from liabilities.
Have any of you so called liberatarians actually read Adam Smith? He was opposed to the idea of a corporations, and considered it government interference in the market.
As for socialism, what a canard. The US economic system has always been corporate socialism, we call it capitalism.
Bullshit. You have never changed a goddamn line in ANY contract as an employee of any firm of more than a handful of people.
The mafia got involved in labor unions during world war II, at the request of the government, to make sure there was "labor peace" on the docks during the war. Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history knows this, so you are either ignorant or lying.
If you compare labor unions to any other kinds of organizations in the country, like businesses, even churches, you will find that labor unions are the least corrupt. That's a fact.
The only major union in modern times that has had ANY sort of organized crime involvement is the Teamsters, the most pro-Republican and conservative union ever. If you look at their industry, you will find the businesses are more involved in crime than any of the union members.
Your ridiculous fantasies of mobsters in unions is propaganda, and at the turn of the century it was called "scientific strikebreaking" - pro-management, anti-union stories floated around to turn public opinion against organizing. I assume you are getting most of these stories from movies like "On the Waterfront". The only question I have is whether or not you really believe it. If you don't, then you are probably a decent propagandist. If you do, than you're just a sucker.
The fact that wage increases have gone down because of H1Bs is not a scare story, it's a fact. The fact that employer unions have lobbied Congress to allow companies to hire H1Bs is not a scare story, it's fact. The fact that US companies are moving jobs to communist China is also not a scare story, but fact.
For all the problems that labor unions may have, they are the only organizations that working class people have, and if they never existed, most Americans would be in the position that Chinese workers are in now, lots of work, little pay, and zero rights. And with more companies like Microsoft and Intel moving jobs to communist China (these are capitalist businesses?), we might be in that position soon.
Businesses run by geeks aren't like other businesses, and a union run by geeks wouldn't be like other unions. That's the point, we can organize for our own interests, and make our union however we want it.
Or, we can compete with H1Bs getting half of what we make, and too scared of deportation to raise their voice at work.
Don't like a "union" - fine, call it a guild, or a professional association, the principle is the same.
You've got quite the selection of software on your site. If you're ever in NYC, look me up and I'll buy you a beer. See, who says free software doesn't pay?
The ILWU did NOT slow down anything - they have been speeding up for months, ignoring safety rules, and now the PMA wants to speed them up more. The deaths and injuries are the predictible outcome.
To people who don't work dangerous jobs, safety rules just sound like more bs to deal with.
I remember a friend of mine who had that attitude. He was working a construction job, and his manager told him to move around some barrels of chemicals - with no protective gear. Being the gung-ho, I don't need safety rules type, he did.
He now suffers from multiple chemical sensitivity, due to the exposure, can't eat a half dozen foods, and breaks out in an ugly rash all the time. It's a lifelong condition.
But, he did get paid almost 15 bucks an hour. Hmm, is it worth it?
If you are union, and you don't like the employment contract, you can vote against it. If you are not union, and you don't like the contract that the company writes for you, too bad.
If you don't like the union rep, you can vote him out.
If unions are so bad, why do companies always form unions of their own, like industry associations, the chamber of commerce, etc?
You are wrong. The longshoremen have been working faster than usual for over six months. The pace of cargo getting loaded and unloaded at the docks is at a record high. The number of deaths at the docks this year is also at a record high, due to the fast pace of work, which is very dangerous.
I bet you don't know a single longshore worker, nor anyone who works for the PMA, do you? It shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Follow the money. I hadn't thought of this at all, of course you are right.
Politicians need campaign contributions in the next two years, so they will be threatening Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry. The industry will hem and haw, pony up some cash, and the restrictions will be watered down so as not to hurt anyone's profit margins.
Look, Joe Lieberman is pushing this - he's concerned about violent video games, but he gets a stiffy thinking about sending American kids off to war. Ignore the rhetoric and follow the money.
Someone finally said it. When I was 15, oh so many years ago, the neighborhood fathers would have been much happier if I had stayed inside and played violent video games.
People saying that we need to protect teenagers from violent and sexy video games are crazy. Don't you remember being a teenager? Do you know any now?
"Because then you can enjoy this "product" without paying the cost. You did NOT purchase the title to "own" or "possess" such product. The product belongs to RIAA, sad to say."
Okay, fine, then why don't they sue me for "Unauthorized Enjoyment". God Damn us all when we need a license for that.
Every once in a while, I take my acoustic guitar over to the local bar and play a few songs, some "original" songs that I wrote, and some covers. I *never* pay royalties for singing those songs, and I do get compensated (mostly in beer).
I believe that I need to pay a royalty for a public performance of those songs. I guess that means I'm a dirty pirate, huh?
An RIAA "artist" takes a chord progression and melody that's been "written" and recorded over and over again, and then RIAA sues someone for copying it? Ridiculous.
Remember when George Harrison was convicted of "copyright infringment" for the song, "My Sweet Lord" - it had the chord progression and melody of an older song, "He's So Fine". The judge ruled that if every 7th note was the same, it could be copyright infringment.
Remember when John Fogerty (the former lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival) was sued for sounding like himself? The record company claimed that they owned the "sound" of CCR, and John Fogerty's solo album sounded like, well, himself. How can anyone take this crap seriously?
If I never buy CDs, and I copy music from my friend who does buy CDs, what has the RIAA lost? Nothing. So how is it stealing?
The fact that people are seriously saying that a "corporation" can "own" a song just shows how far newspeak has progressed.
Is he going to be charged with unauthorized possession of electrons in a particual sequence? Will he be charged with attacking ships on the high seas?
The fact that Michael Jackson's company "owns" Beatles songs is theft IMO.
I wonder which people on slashdot are being paid to spread this "sharing is stealing" meme, and more importantly, how can I sign up?
*Sigh* What about "social" conservatives or "economic liberals" - the words "liberal" and "conservative" don't describe full political philosophies (or much of anything, really).
The gatekeepers in media work for advertizers (business) - in rural, socially conservative areas, the gatekeepers won't offend their advertizers (business) by running articles about how wonderful gay abortionists are, and in urban, liberal cities the gatekeepers won't offend their advertizers (business) by running articles about the need to segregate the races and why women shouldn't vote.
Here's an experiment - go to your local college and pick up a copy of Daily Communist Worker or whatever and see how many business advertizements there are. Hmmmm.
The commericial, business press is "economically conservative" - meaning, pro-business, pro-wealthy, and pro-government. Did anyone really expect it to be different?
...this will be used to spy on the political opposition, not terrorists.
The Administration already knows full well the who, what, where, why, and how of the terrorists - but they can't say too much about Saudi Arabia, because they need the ruling family in power, to protect the oil.
This is about spying on US citizens, for political and commercial reasons. I'm sure the databases will be shared with corporate America for the right amount of campaign contributions.
Sorry for the lame ass me-to post, but "me too" - I agree with your reasons.
I've said it before here, America is the most free country in the world because we are the most armed.
I wonder if this is enforceable? Can they actually change significant (or not so significant) parts of the agreement, not notify anyone, and enforce it?
I wonder is there a way that customers can make up contracts and enforce them against corporations? Something like, "by sending email to this address, you agree to A, B, C".
For some reasons, I expect that the law is pretty much in the corporations favor.
I said I wasn't going to call you names, and I don't think I did.
What kind of freedom fighters kill nuns, priests, children, organizers, electrocute people's genitals, decapitate people and display their heads, oppress women, cut off people's hands for stealing? Your "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan are basically the Taliban. You're telling me that conservatives didn't support the war against South Vietnam? I think the people of Nicaragua got the message loud and clear, vote against the wishes of the US, and the terrorist war against them continues. I would have voted as I was told as well. How you can call that election "fair" is beyond me. The only way the Contras look human is by comparing them to the worst of the Sandinistas, who were (obviously) hardly boy scouts.
The Reagan and Bush administration's record on supporting terrorists, destabilizing governments, and staging coups against Latin America is well documented, perhaps you should read the declassified documents for yourself. Clinton's record, especially in Haiti, is nearly as bad.
The number of felony conviction against defence contractors for defrauding the Pentagon number in the thousands. Pretending that these corporations don't rip off the Pentagon is ridiculous, the record is clear. The fact that many elected officials support this kind of corporate welfare is obvious, what it has to do with defending the country is less obvious. The B1 is a famous example, the Air Force didn't want it, but the Republicans pushed for it for years, at the bidding of their corporate handlers. Nothing to do with defending the country, and everything to do with corporate welfare.
Conservatives believe in a free market when it's in their interests, and when it's not, they happily jettison those principles and start shoveling the cash to their contributors. Liberals do this as well, obviously. Funny, your excuses about "civil society" are exactly the ones liberals use to demand regulation on business, welfare for the poor, and national health insurance. Only conservatives get to use that one?
In any case, any economy run on a fiat currency isn't a "free market". Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats all support our fiat currency regime. Republicans and Democrats hold hands to give tax breaks and cash handouts to companies doing business with the communist regime in China. I just wish they'd stop their BS about "free markets" since they obviously don't believe it themselves.
S&L weren't supposed to pay "competitive rates" - checking accounts weren't supposed to pay interest, remember? And why are you discounting the massive frauds? I brought up Neil Bush because he was fined by the SEC for his fraud (Silverado, in case you don't remember), and he cost taxpayers $1 billion. The 30 billion every year for 30 years is the cost of repaying insured depositors, mostly through the Resolution Trust Corporation. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the S&L scandals knows about this, I think you probably do too.
The Fed is the lender of last resort to the finance industry. They provide liquidity to banks, and they most certainly have control over the interests rates they charge for money. Volker's monetariast policies bankrupted a lot of productive busniesses in the interest of the finance industry. By the way, the reason that no one (with any political power I mean) considers themselves to be a monetarist anymore is because everyone seems to understand that the velocity of money exchange is more important than the "quantity" - as if there is such a thing.
Bush has increased taxes on all of us, regardless of the "reasons". Hmm, first you blame the Democratic controlled house, and now you blame the Democratic controlled Senate (heh, they are partisan, but the Republicans aren't?). Who will you blame when the Republicans control both houses? Bush's policies and actions have increased the taxes that everyone in America will have to pay, for generations. I hope that $300 check bought you something nice, you'll be paying for it in spades from now on.
You assume I'm a liberal? The only critics of conservatives are liberal Democrats, eh? I hardly see the difference between them, aside from the rhetoric.
The Christian right, with whom I am quite familiar, is one of Bush's strongest supporters. Surely you're not going to argue that?
I don't assume to know what's in the heart of conservatives, but I do know that they favor killing of all sorts of people, born and unborn, when it's in their interests. How people who are against abortion, yet for capital punishment, and bombing cities full of people, look in the mirror is beyond me. The National Right to Life Committee doesn't even try to pull that nonsense anymore.
Ann Coulter? Come one, talk about slandering people's motives. Have you actually read any of her columns? They speak for themself! Same with Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the rest of those gasbags. If you were to believe posters on freerepublic and the like, liberals are hell bent on destroying America and in league with the devil. Liberals can't hold a candle to the slanders and demonization of conservatives.
I am fully aware of the difference between the rhetoric of conservatives and libertarians, but the differences between their actions are slight. As far as I can tell, Libertarians just seem to be conservatives who like to smoke pot. Libertarians sure want a strong government to protect their property and enforce their contracts. I always did have trouble understanding the difference between a libertarian company town and dictatorship, aside from the dictator being called "CEO" under the libertarian regime.
It's funny that you seem to assume I'm a liberal democrat or leftist of some kind - the only critic of conservatives and libertarians must be liberals? There's no other options, huh?
"Conservatives are characterized as corrupt, oppressors, happy killers, war mongers, robbers, prudes". Right on every count. Their words and action speak for themselves. You don't have to go further than the conservative forums to see copious examples of each.
Let me finish with some of your own words. Let's see if you can pick up the irony:
"Did I ever question the motives of liberals? Did I ever say that they were evil in their intent? No! Because I recognize that people can have honest differences of opinion, and their opinions just happen to be wrong."
"Is it any wonder that I detest the left? That I consider the left in the US to no longer be merely an alternative view, but rather to be a force of malice and evil?"
In any case, we agree on the original point: FOX is a conservative network.
Sounds good to me. Too bad, I love those apples. Are you listening Washington? I'm writing my letters now...
Why don't we just revoke their corporate charter?
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/faq-corporate.htm
"Microsoft was incorporated in the state of Washington on June 25, 1981; reincorporated in the state of Delaware on September 19, 1986; and reincorporated in the state of Washington on November 1, 1993."
If it wasn't for the government incorporating Microsoft, and giving their investors immunity from their liabilities, they wouldn't be able to get away with all the things they do. Let Bill Gates make money on his own, without taxpayer help. Maybe he can move to communist China, which he seems to love so much that he makes the XBox there.
I'm not going to call you names, "rightist", "conservative", or "fascist", but let me make a few points:
1. Every year, Reagan proposed a budget that would increase the deficit and the debt.
2. Defending our country does not include arming terrorists in Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, nor does it include coups and destabilizing governments whose economic policies corporations don't like. Passing weapons programs that the military doesn't even want, in order to pay off defence contractors, is not defending our country. The B-1, $500 hammers, etc., etc. That's just corporate welfare.
Both Democrats and Republicans do this, but conservatives and libertarians won't admit they love big government - when it helps them.
3. If conservatives believe in bailing out airlines, for whatever reasons, they support corporate welfare, and they are against free markets. According to free market theory, the airlines should have gone bankrupt, if they couldn't handle a slowdown in business. There are plenty of new airlines that could have been started. I guess conservatives don't believe in free markets after all.
4. The S&Ls started having economic trouble when they started speculative investments (due to deregulation), and were defrauded by people like Neil Bush. You can equivicate all you want on this one, but the facts are clear - 30 billion a year for 30 years. Not to mention that the "conservative" Fed Chairman at the time, Paul Volker, a monetarist (like Reagan) destroyed many businesses by jacking up interest rates - but still provided plenty of liquidity to the finance industry, at attractive rates. It seems that conservatives just love a fiat currency, a hallmark of big intrusive government.
5. Bush has increased the deficit, and borrowed more money, which means that Americans will have to pay more interest. That means more taxes. He's just shifted the burden onto future generations, after he's out of office. How convienient for him. That means non-income federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes will have to be increased. Bush raised taxes on all of us.
6. The Christian right is the most loyal and solid faction of the Republican party, and call themselves conservative.
7. Interesting how conservatives care so much about women having abortions, except the kind of abortions that happen when bombing people. I guess only some fetuses count?
Now, go ahead and call me names, that seems to be standard procedure for conservative liberatarian types.
Under Reagan and Bush, and now Bush II, the size of government increased dramatically. Reagan tripled the public debt. Republicans don't like the government building hospitals, or schools. but they love big government when it comes to the defence industry, space, and corporate welfare.
Under Reagan, Bush headed the "Vice-President's Council on Competitveness", in which he handed out billions of taxpayer money to select Republican donors. That's corporate welfare.
Bush II just gave handouts and subsidies to airlines, agriculture, steel, etc. Not to mention borrowed billions from the financial industry for "tax cuts" - a total joke, considering he just increased everyone's taxes, just pushed paying for it forward a few years.
Reagan and Bush both gave billions of bailouts to the defrauded S&Ls (like Bush's brother). They've bailed the finance industry time and time again, to the tune of trillions of dollars, over the last 20 years.
Republicans want more government interference in your sex life, your reproduction, your porn and everything else. Bush wants to give tax money to churches and religious organizations.
Yes, conservatives seem to love big government, as long as it's not "socialist" - i.e., hospitals, schools, health care, welfare for single mothers, etc.
Republicans love to send the US military to "protect America's economic interests" - more corporate welfare, for the oil industry, the weapons industry, minerals, etc. By growing the military, they are increasing government.
Now FOX may not say "we love corporate welfare" but they certainly support the politicians who give it out.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like Clinton was much different. He loved corporate welfare too.
I agree, FOX is a conservative network. But they hardly admit it, they go on and on everyday about how they are "fair and balanced" - they don't have ads calling themselves "The Conservative Network". FOX News was started by a long time Republican operative, after all.
FOX news coverage is pretty much the same as all the rest - they get their stories from AP and Reuters like everyone else does, straight pro-corporate news. But their talk shows and featurs are all conservative all the time.
By "conservative", I mean pro-big government, pro-corporate welfare, and pro-war.
Since all of the companies under discussion are corporations, free market principle don't really apply. No corporations would exist without government interference, they ARE government interference.
The idea of government forcing corporations at gunpoint is ridiculous. Corporations are artifical legal entities set up by the government, and their owners are granted special immunity from liabilities.
Have any of you so called liberatarians actually read Adam Smith? He was opposed to the idea of a corporations, and considered it government interference in the market.
As for socialism, what a canard. The US economic system has always been corporate socialism, we call it capitalism.
Bullshit. You have never changed a goddamn line in ANY contract as an employee of any firm of more than a handful of people.
The mafia got involved in labor unions during world war II, at the request of the government, to make sure there was "labor peace" on the docks during the war. Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history knows this, so you are either ignorant or lying.
If you compare labor unions to any other kinds of organizations in the country, like businesses, even churches, you will find that labor unions are the least corrupt. That's a fact.
The only major union in modern times that has had ANY sort of organized crime involvement is the Teamsters, the most pro-Republican and conservative union ever. If you look at their industry, you will find the businesses are more involved in crime than any of the union members.
Your ridiculous fantasies of mobsters in unions is propaganda, and at the turn of the century it was called "scientific strikebreaking" - pro-management, anti-union stories floated around to turn public opinion against organizing. I assume you are getting most of these stories from movies like "On the Waterfront". The only question I have is whether or not you really believe it. If you don't, then you are probably a decent propagandist. If you do, than you're just a sucker.
The fact that wage increases have gone down because of H1Bs is not a scare story, it's a fact. The fact that employer unions have lobbied Congress to allow companies to hire H1Bs is not a scare story, it's fact. The fact that US companies are moving jobs to communist China is also not a scare story, but fact.
For all the problems that labor unions may have, they are the only organizations that working class people have, and if they never existed, most Americans would be in the position that Chinese workers are in now, lots of work, little pay, and zero rights. And with more companies like Microsoft and Intel moving jobs to communist China (these are capitalist businesses?), we might be in that position soon.
Businesses run by geeks aren't like other businesses, and a union run by geeks wouldn't be like other unions. That's the point, we can organize for our own interests, and make our union however we want it.
Or, we can compete with H1Bs getting half of what we make, and too scared of deportation to raise their voice at work.
Don't like a "union" - fine, call it a guild, or a professional association, the principle is the same.
Maybe something like Local 23
You've got quite the selection of software on your site. If you're ever in NYC, look me up and I'll buy you a beer. See, who says free software doesn't pay?
Hey! I've played your java ladder, and it's great. Ladder and Adventure were my favorite games on the old Kaypro CPM machine, hence the name.
The ILWU did NOT slow down anything - they have been speeding up for months, ignoring safety rules, and now the PMA wants to speed them up more. The deaths and injuries are the predictible outcome.
To people who don't work dangerous jobs, safety rules just sound like more bs to deal with.
I remember a friend of mine who had that attitude. He was working a construction job, and his manager told him to move around some barrels of chemicals - with no protective gear. Being the gung-ho, I don't need safety rules type, he did.
He now suffers from multiple chemical sensitivity, due to the exposure, can't eat a half dozen foods, and breaks out in an ugly rash all the time. It's a lifelong condition.
But, he did get paid almost 15 bucks an hour. Hmm, is it worth it?
If you are union, and you don't like the employment contract, you can vote against it. If you are not union, and you don't like the contract that the company writes for you, too bad.
If you don't like the union rep, you can vote him out.
If unions are so bad, why do companies always form unions of their own, like industry associations, the chamber of commerce, etc?
Yeah, all those unionized teachers are really mobsters, running gambling rings and protection rackets at lunchtime. snicker.
You are wrong. The longshoremen have been working faster than usual for over six months. The pace of cargo getting loaded and unloaded at the docks is at a record high. The number of deaths at the docks this year is also at a record high, due to the fast pace of work, which is very dangerous.
I bet you don't know a single longshore worker, nor anyone who works for the PMA, do you? It shows.