NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, if you're the Bush administration .... you recinded the rules against repeat offenders continuing to get government dollars and then you give them extra-large contracts! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_us/iraq_punished_contractors_6)

Or, to quote one of the investigators:
"But it's not the company's fault if it has a dumb client. I'm not blaming the companies, I'm blaming the government,"

That makes two of us.

The question assumes the existance of non-corrupt companies.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

The question assumes the existance of non-corrupt companies.



This statement assumes that all companies are corrupt.

It's a matter of defintion to every person. How many people acting in a corrupt manner think "damn I am one corrupt SOB!"

Zeppistan: Thanks it just furthers my belief that in time we will belive the shrubs administration to be one of the most corrupt ever.

But, you know, Bush isn't giving in to special intrests, or something.

Proposal:
If a corporation or exec does something that displaces most of its workers or drasticlly and adversly effects the community that fostered it/them, then it should be considered a violent crime and therefore falling under the three strikes laws. They have a more drastic effect to more people and involves larger sums of money then someone holding up a 7-11.

I don't see that being all too realistic, but it makes me comfortable to think of it as a possibility.

But, you know, Bush isn't giving in to special intrests, or something.

Proposal:
If a corporation or exec does something that displaces most of its workers or drasticlly and adversly effects the community that fostered it/them, then it should be considered a violent crime and therefore falling under the three strikes laws. They have a more drastic effect to more people and involves larger sums of money then someone holding up a 7-11.

I don't see that being all too realistic, but it makes me comfortable to think of it as a possibility.

But, you know, Bush isn't giving in to special intrests, or something.

Proposal:
If a corporation or exec does something that displaces most of its workers or drasticlly and adversly effects the community that fostered it/them, then it should be considered a violent crime and therefore falling under the three strikes laws. They have a more drastic effect to more people and involves larger sums of money then someone holding up a 7-11.

I don't see that being all too realistic, but it makes me comfortable to think of it as a possibility.

In our IC nation we take the senior staff, tie them up in front of a tree with their hands tied behind their backs, depants them, and let our populace dispose of our surplus rotting turnips as creatively as possible.

In our IC nation we take the senior staff, tie them up in front of a tree with their hands tied behind their backs, depants them, and let our populace dispose of our surplus rotting turnips as creatively as possible.


Hmmm, you know - with that permanent sour look on his face you'd almost swear that this had already happened to cheney... and that one or two of 'em got stuck....