NationStates Jolt Archive

Just an informal survey, no political discussion necessary. I'm just trying to get an idea of numbers and beliefs:

Do you believe that Communism is an inevitable outgrowth of current social, political, and economic trends, or is it something that only MIGHT happen?

Please, if you're not a Communist or don't consider yourself one, I'd appreciate it if you don't respond. You'll screw up my data. Thanks.

Inevitable. Dance dance dance.

Communism failed. Losers.

Communism failed. Losers.
Stalinism failed. Capitalism's failing. Fascism failed. Nazism failed. Losers.

Stalinism failed. Capitalism's failing. Fascism failed. Nazism failed. Losers.

Feudalism and monarchism failed too. Losers.

Feudalism and monarchism failed too. Losers.

So did defeatism. Losers.

Capitalism's failing.
When you turn 17, you might actually understand this isn't the case. Anyone who says capitalism is "failing" is obviously not paying any attention whatsoever to the world around them. Capitalism beat fascism senseless in 12 years, it defeated the Soviets in about 70 years, and it's currently burying the welfare state.

So no, I wouldn't say capitalism is really anywhere near "failing." Asia is succeeding because they're finally starting to use it.

Stalinism failed. Capitalism's failing. Fascism failed. Nazism failed. Losers.

How is capitalism failing? If anything, it's stronger than ever now that Asia's adopting it increasingly.

...and it's currently burying the welfare state.
And that, combined with a healthy democracy, might just kill capitalism off afterall. Says Schumpeter.

I don't believe that it's inevitable, but I do believe it's likely. Lenin, while he was wrong on other things, was right about his theory of imperialism. (That the people in the most capitalist countries would demand certain communist reforms, and that the corporations in those countries would give them to them by building sweatshops in the third world, thus offsetting their costs.) However, there are a lot of countries in the world, so what it would need is for people in every country to be sufficiently exploited by capitalism for it to work.
With that said, it doesn't mean that people can't democratically choose communism - but that isn't something that would inevitably happen.

And that, combined with a healthy democracy, might just kill capitalism off afterall. Says Schumpeter.
I'm inclined to agree. Many people believe that the welfare state was the only thing that saved capitalism in the first place.

Communism is inevitable wherever there is an appropriately ruthless elite willing to assume power through the force of arms, and a mass of peasantry who feel oppressed enough to take up the red banner under their leadership. European democratic socialism is inevitable wherever decision makers realize they can make the minority labour for the health and welfare of the majority.

I'm all for the ascension of the common man, but I'm rather concerned about the uncommon man.

The idea that capitalism is winning is also probably untrue, no doubt it's current success is building up to a fall. That isnt to say that capitalism cant possibly survive but its must change to survive. There's no telling as to how much it will change should it do so.

One of the central goals of communism is to make everybody equal. The way to do this is not by having the strong support the weak, but by ridding the planet of the weak. I'm not advocating genocide, I'm just saying nature should be allowed to take it's course.

One of the central goals of communism is to make everybody equal. The way to do this is not by having the strong support the weak, but by ridding the planet of the weak. I'm not advocating genocide, I'm just saying nature should be allowed to take it's course.

:p I can't help but chuckle at the image of some guy sitting at his computer among a pile of books by Nietzsche saying "Kill the weak!" as though he were a member of the élite übermenschen. How do you define weak? Where does "weak" end and "not the greatest" begin? What if the "weak" band together and oppose the strong?

How is capitalism failing? If anything, it's stronger than ever now that Asia's adopting it increasingly.
And they are becoming corrupt hellholes when 8 year olds work 15 hour days because of it. In morals it gets a C-. It's a wonderful life that the asian people live don't they. :p

Not really a communist, but I see it as possible, and by no means inevitable.

Communism is a stage. Well, the roots thereof at least.

Nothing within society is inevitable, fascism was not inevitable, 1917 was not inevitable and neither will be whatever shape the world is in 20, 50, 100 years from now. It's all about choice and context.

Though I am Socialist (relatively close to communism), I'm also a realist. My ideals can never and will never be realised. Human nature gets in the way.

My ideal is a government where everyone is provided for based on their need as well as their willingness to work to escape that need. This is highly subjective and immediately runs into the problem that people are inherently greedy and/or lazy douchebags.

One of two things can completely screw it up. Either someone wants more power and takes advantage of other peoples lack of ambition (highly likely), or someone is unwilling to carry their own weight and demands "equal treatment" for nothing (equally likely). Very frustrating to say the least.

Come on, there have to be more Communists than this on the board. I mean look at all those "People's Republic of" nations!

Just an informal survey, no political discussion necessary. I'm just trying to get an idea of numbers and beliefs:

Do you believe that Communism is an inevitable outgrowth of current social, political, and economic trends, or is it something that only MIGHT happen?

Please, if you're not a Communist or don't consider yourself one, I'd appreciate it if you don't respond. You'll screw up my data. Thanks.

I think it is certainly possible if the fucking status quo keeps up the way it is going. There is only so much deprivation people are willing to put up with, and seeing the rich constantly get richer, while the average person struggles harder and harder just to stay in the same place...sooner or later some sort of critical mass will be reached, and, while it may not lead to communism, per se...it will lead to a fairer distribution of wealth. Personally, I would like to see our economic system become more socialist, while retaining our individual rights and freedoms, something similar to, say, Sweden.

I'm sick and tired of capitalism...a system that, by design, creates unnecessary and preventable deprivations for some, so that others may have more than their fair share...and more than they will ever need.

Money's like manure. Spread it around and it can do wonders. Pile it all up in one place, and it stinks to high heaven.

So did defeatism. Losers.
So did anarchism. Losers :D

I see some form of Communism raising to power. So long as those in power to not abuse the people and actually do their jobs free of corruption. But corruption as plagued every form of government to make them all ineffectual, but a lack of government is not any better. Damn human nature.

Capitalism is unsustainable. Ultimately the mad drive for capital will have to be disrupted by something, or it will collapse and take the human species with it.

We have already "leashed" the system, implementing regulations and welfare programs to prevent the inevitable concentration of wealth in a very few hands, but already the forces of global capitalism are determined to roll these regulations back, and are succeeding quite significantly.

I think that is probably inevitable, because middle grounds are extremely difficult to hold at this point. Social democracy will either be forced to capitulate to corporate power, and destroy itself, or annihilate corporate power to the extent that the new system can no longer be called capitalist. So far the tendency has been the former, but it need not remain so, and if the human species intends to survive it must not remain so.

So the answer to the question is no, it is not inevitable, unless one is inclined to believe that God will not let the human species destroy itself, or in some other assertion of the sort.

Capitalism beat Fascism in 12 years

No, war destroyed Fascism. Before that, Fascists had quite a bit of economic growth. Besides, if you'd remmeber the Soviet monsters also beat the fascists.

As for the question at hand, revolution is inevitable.

Stalinism failed. Capitalism's failing. Fascism failed. Nazism failed. Losers.

Fascism only failed due to the exertions of three superpowers against two nations, and even then the fascists, with the resources of the USA, would have triumphed.

In what way is capitalism failing, are the poor ickle impoverished lower orders not being given total parity in all affairs? Does anybody truly hold any concerns for the poor?

That is the problem with Captialism. No one cares for anyone but themselves. Granted it is not everyone but a great deal of the people I have asked this question "If you had to give up part of what you owned to help those who truly needed it, would you?" And a great deal of them said "Hell no" or "What I have is mine and no one elses."

Those I work with have said "Why worry about another country? Let them all die" and for pete sake I work in a hospital where we are suppose to be helping people. It is quite horrible when capitalism and in America's case senseless nationalism combine together.

That is the problem with Captialism. No one cares for anyone but themselves. Granted it is not everyone but a great deal of the people I have asked this question "If you had to give up part of what you owned to help those who truly needed it, would you?" And a great deal of them said "Hell no" or "What I have is mine and no one elses."

Those I work with have said "Why worry about another country? Let them all die" and for pete sake I work in a hospital where we are suppose to be helping people. It is quite horrible when capitalism and in America's case senseless nationalism combine together.

Why, however, are we compelled to care for the inhabitants of other nations, or the poverty stricken of our own nation? In what respect is it probable that we will ever require either assistance or aid from them, and accordingly, why ought we to care for them?

Why, however, are we compelled to care for the inhabitants of other nations, or the poverty stricken of our own nation? In what respect is it probable that we will ever require either assistance or aid from them, and accordingly, why ought we to care for them?

Maybe perhaps that we are all human reguardless of what level of society we are born into. How much do we lose because we dismiss the poor who where never really given a chance to succeed. When the money is being funneled into programs that benefit on the rich and elite?

So we ought to ignore them, brush them under the carpet like they do not exist?

Maybe perhaps that we are all human reguardless of what level of society we are born into. How much do we lose because we dismiss the poor who where never really given a chance to succeed. When the money is being funneled into programs that benefit on the rich and elite?

So we ought to ignore them, brush them under the carpet like they do not exist?

Possibly. How many of the poor actively try to improve their position, in comparison to the amount who are content to exist from benefits/ social security?

Incidentally, how much do we actually lose when we disregard the poor and disadvantaged? I can assure the conversation is somewhat intellectually numbing, and they deride the priveliged and affluent, yet anticipate it as their right to take money from them.

Possibly. How many of the poor actively try to improve their position, in comparison to the amount who are content to exist from benefits/ social security?

Incidentally, how much do we actually lose when we disregard the poor and disadvantaged? I can assure the conversation is somewhat intellectually numbing, and they deride the priveliged and affluent, yet anticipate it as their right to take money from them.

And how much predujice is placed over the poor who do try to succeed? And there fore are not given a fair chance. Which in turn stops others from trying by seeing the futility of the effort. Those who struggle to meet ends meet working 2 or 3 jobs, and then there are those who make a movie or two a year and have millions to spend. Where only the upper classes get any good health care. Where doctors dont care about their patients they simply want more money.

How much do we lose when we never give them a fair chance? How can we possibly know if you just chose to look the other way?

And how much predujice is placed over the poor who do try to succeed? And there fore are not given a fair chance. Which in turn stops others from trying by seeing the futility of the effort. Those who struggle to meet ends meet working 2 or 3 jobs, and then there are those who make a movie or two a year and have millions to spend. Where only the upper classes get any good health care. Where doctors dont care about their patients they simply want more money.

How much do we lose when we never give them a fair chance? How can we possibly know if you just chose to look the other way?

Quite simply, life is inherently injust. Communism, that oh so flawed and inherently deplorable attempt at universal egalitarianism, failed utterly, due to the hubris that pervades mankind. Competition and self-aggrandisement are intrinsic qualities of mankind, we ought to construct no facades as to their not being so. The precedent of individuals such as Michael Tyson portray with clarity quite why the poor are utterly unfi for wealth, they expend it in a clamour of frivolity. Capitalism is the ultimate expression and illustration of the intrinsic qualities os humanity, and we ought to feel no compulsion to aid those who would not reciprocate the gesture, and who furthermore expend such aid upon frivolities that are unbefitting of their "needy" status.

Possibly. How many of the poor actively try to improve their position, in comparison to the amount who are content to exist from benefits/ social security?

Incidentally, how much do we actually lose when we disregard the poor and disadvantaged? I can assure the conversation is somewhat intellectually numbing, and they deride the priveliged and affluent, yet anticipate it as their right to take money from them.

How many poor people who went to Eton do you see on the dole? Very few people are poor by choice. A lot of people who are just hard working and honest, not ruthless and selfish, can try their best and be intelligent, but be held back because of the disadvantages they have. On the other hand, a lot of rich people are actually very lazy individuals with little to no talent, who either know how to impress people and stab others in the back to get ahead, inherited their wealth/job, or were sent to public school and thus are automatically considered by employers as better people to employ than those from inner city schools.

Quite simply, life is inherently injust. Communism, that oh so flawed and inherently deplorable attempt at universal egalitarianism, failed utterly, due to the hubris that pervades mankind. Competition and self-aggrandisement are intrinsic qualities of mankind, we ought to construct no facades as to their not being so. The precedent of individuals such as Michael Tyson portray with clarity quite why the poor are utterly unfi for wealth, they expend it in a clamour of frivolity. Capitalism is the ultimate expression and illustration of the intrinsic qualities os humanity, and we ought to feel no compulsion to aid those who would not reciprocate the gesture, and who furthermore expend such aid upon frivolities that are unbefitting of their "needy" status.

And you are the reason why Captialism is instricantly evil and cold. Who cares about others, its about me, me, me and did I mention me? Human nature can be changed it takes effort and time. And a willingness to change to make the neccessary changes.

Of course if we continue on this path no one will ever care and the world will continue to deterioate because we dont care.

And you are the reason why Captialism is instricantly evil and cold. Who cares about others, its about me, me, me and did I mention me? Human nature can be changed it takes effort and time. And a willingness to change to make the neccessary changes.

Of course if we continue on this path no one will ever care and the world will continue to deterioate because we dont care.

Human nature doesn't have to change, because Anarcho-Communism works, plain and simple.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Plenty of examples here, and a comprehensive explanation of Anarcho-Communism.

they deride the priveliged and affluent, yet anticipate it as their right to take money from them.What right is there to be priviledged and affluent?

What right is there to be priviledged and affluent?

To an extent, it is merely an extension of genetics. Some are born inordinately good looking, some are repulsive, whilst some are born priveliged, others are not. Privelige by birth is every inch as heriditary as natural selection, mutation and genetics, and to contend with such a concept is to contravene nature itslef.

And they are becoming corrupt hellholes when 8 year olds work 15 hour days because of it. In morals it gets a C-. It's a wonderful life that the asian people live don't they. :p

I'd rate the conditions you discriped way below a C-, personally.

I see some form of Communism raising to power. So long as those in power to not abuse the people and actually do their jobs free of corruption. But corruption as plagued every form of government to make them all ineffectual, but a lack of government is not any better. Damn human nature.

Communism can NEVER work at achieving it's stated goal of equality. You can't give all power to the state and expect it to do what's best for everyone. It will do what's best for it's self. Additionally, the idea that a small minority knows what's best for the vast majority and can run their lives better then then can is insulting and wrong, and I reject it utterly. I know how to live my life best, no one can tell me differently. Just as you know better then anyone how to live your life.

A powerful body (in this case, the state) will tolerate no chalange to it's power. Once it controls the economy, it will not let the workers of a factory run their own factory (as evidenced by Petrograd), and if you let them get control of your life, it will never want to give up that control, and will keep you in bondage forever.

Communism, facism, republicanism, any system that gives too much power over the whole to a few, they are built on false premeses, and must be rejected by right thinking humans who realise there is no one but themselves who can control (and by extention, be responcible for) their own lives.

To an extent, it is merely an extension of genetics. Some are born inordinately good looking, some are repulsive, whilst some are born priveliged, others are not. Privelige by birth is every inch as heriditary as natural selection, mutation and genetics, and to contend with such a concept is to contravene nature itslef.

I'm not afraid to defy nature itself it that's what it takes to get rid of the élites. If "nature" tells me not to interfere with the power of the rich, I will tell it to eff off.

I'm not afraid to defy nature itself it that's what it takes to get rid of the élites. If "nature" tells me not to interfere with the power of the rich, I will tell it to eff off.

Well go you. I am, however, justified in claiming that Marx implyed communism was the ultimate result of human nature, and therefore, the principal tenets of communism are more flawed than before.

A. Asking people in a capitalist society to be altruistic will, on the great average, lead to people rejecting it. Its not argument against altruism, its an argument against altruism in capitalism.

B. Communism hasn't defeated. Nations that have attempted it have changed, or are changing their governments.

-1. These nations didn't change because their systems didn't work fundamentally. For starters, most of the nations were poor to begin with, especially Russia, so if anything, they were wildly successful economically, etc. While capitalism worked great for the first people, countries that are new to capitalism(50 years or less) aren't total powerhouses, because they are already dominated by the western capitalists.

-2. Point in case, russia. Before world war two, its economy and military grew exponentially. However, during and after world war two, it simply had to put more and more of its limited resources into militarism, etc. Its not an argument against communism, its an argument against living above your means.

-3. While China may be doing well, it has been state capitalist for a while now, trading in a capitalist fashion with other nations, etc. It wasn't spending the huge amounts of money on its military, as the USSR was, during the cold war. And it is reverting to short-term exploitation of its populace to achieve these gains. Communism was not to blame for china's problems, bad government mostly was(and I will submit that revolution and civil wars which put communism into place will likely bring those types of governments, though there are other ways of putting these governments in place).

C. Again, about Russia/USSR. Though people like to claim how communism wont work, be it because of governments or lazy people etc, none of this was really shown in the USSR. The USSR collapsed because it was trying to compete with a much richer nation, and though it did its best(communism probably being the best way to come close), they couldn't sustain it. A bad starting place and being ganged up on by much of the world were main reasons for its failure.

before we go on, I think we should define "worked."

According to the Decleration of Independence, the point of a government or system is to ensure the rights and safty of the people. Now, a government can build a nation's economy and succeed militarily and technologicaly (as did Nazi Germany, and as did the USSR, for a time), but not safeguard the rights of the people. To me, a system doesn't "work" simply by surviving and defeating other nations or systems. It "works" when the people under it are cared for, safe, and free.

By that definition, Stalinism was a miraculous failure, and it is my opinion that whenever you turn over total power to the government, as in state Communisum, it will be a failure. Currently, I see the US system as a failure. I see China as a failure. Dispite the fact that both of these nations have powerful economies (China's growing rapidly).

On that definition, I'd say that Spanish-style Anarchism worked, untill it was destroyed by Franco and his Facists, supported by Hitler, and by the Stalinists. It was a working system while it lasted, and under different conditions, it would not have been destroyed by war. Conversly, the USSR lasted for a long time, with many encnomic and technological successes, but I concider it a failure from the beginning. It failed at keeping it's people provided for and *free*.

More Communist input needed. I'm trying to collect a statistically significant sample.

On that definition, I'd say that Spanish-style Anarchism worked, untill it was destroyed by Franco and his Facists, supported by Hitler, and by the Stalinists. It was a working system while it lasted, and under different conditions, it would not have been destroyed by war. Conversly, the USSR lasted for a long time, with many encnomic and technological successes, but I concider it a failure from the beginning. It failed at keeping it's people provided for and *free*.So then while communism isn't a good thing, anarcho-communism is, is that what you're saying?

They seek him here
They Seek Him there
Those Commies Seek him everywhere!
Is he in heaven
Or is he in Hell
That Damned elusive
International Capitalism!

So then while communism isn't a good thing, anarcho-communism is, is that what you're saying?

I have a bad habbit of saying "Communism" when I mean "state-communism," sorry. So yes, state-communism is bad, anarcho-communism, or anarchy, good, for the most part.

In my opinion, anyway

I have a bad habbit of saying "Communism" when I mean "state-communism," sorry. So yes, state-communism is bad, anarcho-communism, or anarchy, good, for the most part.

Then, that's what Communism's supposed to be, anyway.

What right is there to be priviledged and affluent?

In capitalist society, the right to affluence is often the result of wealth accrued through hard work or good luck.

In capitalist society, the right to affluence is often the result of wealth accrued through hard work or good luck.

In a Capitalist society, the right to starve in the gutter is often the result of being unable to acquire wealth due to disability or bad luck.

Don't you just love it?

In a Capitalist society, the right to starve in the gutter is often the result of being unable to acquire wealth due to disability or bad luck.

Don't you just love it?
I've lived in the US for all of my life, and I have yet to see anyone "starving in the gutter". Let alone whole hordes of Ethiopianesque citizens.
Sorry, but that's an outrageous myth perpetuated by those with collectivist agendas. In other words, stupid bullshit. Don't be so hyperbolic.
If pinkos and commies want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest dropping the gross sensationalism.

starve in the gutter


From what I've seen of the American public during the time I've spent over there, many seem to suffer from the opposite dietary skirge - no offense. If the fact that most Americans have to make an effort not to overeat isn't proof that capitalism works, I don't know what is.

I'm a communist, and while I may be so, I also value the opinions of both sides, and thus take things neutrally. I will argue neutrally, to the best of my ability, on both ends of the string.

First of all, I have seen from most posters here that they are leaning towards a communist = temporary (and okay) versus capitalism = longer ( and better ). While it may seem so, note that America is NOT capitalist. True capitalism ended after it caused the great depression, and if you do not believe me, that is all right. But I will explain on the things about capitalism some do not know.

People in Capitalism do not always make exactly the amount of money they work for, thus decreasing the values of the final reward. However, there are occasional economic booms in Capitalism, which leads to increased productivity, and increased purchases. When the productivity is faced with a part of where the people no longer purchase their items, there becomes more extra supplies, and that usually can replace workers, making it cheaper/having a smaller reward. As the reward is less, the money is less, and soon enough there are things that they cannot purchase. In usual attempts from rivalling companies (free trade, and no intervention from governments) prices will drop, to increase their profits, but soon enough that means less money is given to the people who work, decreasing even more so the value of the reward they receive for the work they do.

In the end, the inflation comes from extra goods, and reduced workers, thus having less people who will purchase the goods, sending some smaller companies out of business. Overall, Capitalism is not the practice of simply free-market trade, but the political sysem supporting a quasi alternate corporate world, where the government never interferes with the companies, and the corporations do things themselves. Pre-WW2 America was very much like this, causing the rise of large and uncontrollable corporations, which then escalated to the rising of massive separate economic powers within the country.

No country is truly capitalist.

Now, onto the flip side of the argument.

While some may seem followers of communism and and the belief itself as naive (in belief of an equal goverment, without the inclusion of genetic human nature), know that communism is also split into and economic structure, and a political structure. Communism, as an economic structure, is fairly stable, expecting an equal contribution to the nation at large, thus there is no excess or deficit of goods or money expected. However, inferring human nature into the equation, we are faced with people who will not be willing to contribute to society's benefits at large, thus resulting in a higher authority system that must resort to forcing them to do so. Therefore, economic pure communism turns into state-communism, a slight transit into socialism.

Political communism is simply what is viewed as anarchism, the reform and destruction of superior authorities, and allowing the people to co-operate as a single being, but that does not infer human nature as well. Hunger for power or natural uncontrollability grows frequently, and people are regularly faced with such decisions of being unable to defend themselves when the needs arise. Soon, after enough 'chaos' is spread throughout the populace, usually a greater power rises to suppress the masses, leading to semi-fascism, or a near authoritarianism. Therefore, anarchy is not the ideal of chaos and destruction, but an attempt at sustaining overwhelming aspects of communism.

To sum things up, there will most likely be never a true communist succession. Also, on the other end, there is, and probably never will be, a true capitalist state.

In capitalist society, the right to affluence is often the result of wealth accrued through hard work or good luck.This explains why people are affluent, but does not explain why they have the right to be, or should have the right to be.

This explains why people are affluent, but does not explain why they have the right to be, or should have the right to be.

Since without the right to affluence and self-aggrandisment, we are bron to mediocrity, with little other than mindless altruism and apathy to fill our days. Why should those who are capable be witheld to the leevl of the common man, merely due to the incompetance and apathy of others?

before we go on, I think we should define "worked."

According to the Decleration of Independence, the point of a government or system is to ensure the rights and safty of the people. Now, a government can build a nation's economy and succeed militarily and technologicaly (as did Nazi Germany, and as did the USSR, for a time), but not safeguard the rights of the people. To me, a system doesn't "work" simply by surviving and defeating other nations or systems. It "works" when the people under it are cared for, safe, and free.

Thank you.
By that definition, Capitalism is MOST DEFINITELY a failure!

In capitalist society, the right to affluence is often the result of wealth accrued through hard work or good luck.

No, it is usually the result of ruthlessness, greed, and stabbing other people in the back.
Most rich people are stupid, lazy fuckwads who inherited their money, and never had to put in a hard day's work in their entire fucking lives.

Thank you.
By that definition, Capitalism is MOST DEFINITELY a failure!

And yet, surely prosperity ultimately is beneficient for the entire nation, the finance over time filtering down to the lower orders. Capitalism is not a failure, it alone won the cold war, communism lost it.

No, it is usually the result of ruthlessness, greed, and stabbing other people in the back.
Most rich people are stupid, lazy fuckwads who inherited their money, and never had to put in a hard day's work in their entire fucking lives.

And? Why punish the exertions of one's ancestors by compelling those who have the means to survive without work to work? Life is inherently, indiscriminately injust, it is not for you to question why, merely to forge on with the cards you are dealt.

I've lived in the US for all of my life, and I have yet to see anyone "starving in the gutter". Let alone whole hordes of Ethiopianesque citizens.
Sorry, but that's an outrageous myth perpetuated by those with collectivist agendas. In other words, stupid bullshit. Don't be so hyperbolic.
If pinkos and commies want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest dropping the gross sensationalism.

I have. It's easy not to see what one refuses to look at, or to acknowledge for what it is.
Being a transgender person, I have seen the kind of economic deprivation brought about by unfair discrimination, and have been a victim of it myself. I have seen people with 150 and better IQ's end up force to turn tricks and prostitute themselves, because it was the only way they could survive. Because, for mean motives, they were denied a chance to use the skills and abilities that they had.
If one refuses to see the street people, and refuses to acknowledge what it means that there are many who live on the street, then it becomes easy to make a statement like you just did.

From what I've seen of the American public during the time I've spent over there, many seem to suffer from the opposite dietary skirge - no offense. If the fact that most Americans have to make an effort not to overeat isn't proof that capitalism works, I don't know what is.

Wrong. The reason many Americans are overweight is NOT because they eat too much, it is because they cannot afford good, quality, nutritious food, because the meat with less fat costs a hell of a lot more. Or because they are working two or three jobs just to survive, and do not have time to prepare a proper, nutritious, and balanced meal...instead, they drive thru McDonald's, because it is all they have time...or energy for...at the end of their long day.

It is because we Americans eat unhealthy food that most of us are overweight. Not because we eat too much. Many of us eat the "wrong" foods, or unhealthy foods, because of the convenience (time factor as described above) or because they lack the ability, financially, to afford the good food that does not make you fat.

And vegetarianism is not for everyone, and takes an incredible amount of effort. It is much quicker and easier to drive thru Mickey Dees than it is to prepare a vegetarian meal. Most people are bound in their food choices by the twin problem of affordability, and convenience.

And that is what makes most Americans fat.

Wrong. The reason many Americans are overweight is NOT because they eat too much, it is because they cannot afford good, quality, nutritious food, because the meat with less fat costs a hell of a lot more. Or because they are working two or three jobs just to survive, and do not have time to prepare a proper, nutritious, and balanced meal...instead, they drive thru McDonald's, because it is all they have time...or energy for...at the end of their long day.

It is because we Americans eat unhealthy food that most of us are overweight. Not because we eat too much. Many of us eat the "wrong" foods, or unhealthy foods, because of the convenience (time factor as described above) or because they lack the ability, financially, to afford the good food that does not make you fat.

And vegetarianism is not for everyone, and takes an incredible amount of effort. It is much quicker and easier to drive thru Mickey Dees than it is to prepare a vegetarian meal. Most people are bound in their food choices by the twin problem of affordability, and convenience.

And that is what makes most Americans fat.

Indeed, how very hard life is in the richest nation on earth.:rolleyes:

Indeed, how very hard life is in the richest nation on earth.:rolleyes:
You forgot only 3% of the nation is 'rich' the rest are just 'average' and getting lower every day. Recently I heard that the two US businesses with the most profits were Exxon and Walmart. Isn't that funny the two businesses that Exploit America most. And Oil Company and Oversea products produced by the Exploited Asians working for an outsourced Company.

Since without the right to affluence and self-aggrandisment, we are bron to mediocrity, with little other than mindless altruism and apathy to fill our days. Why should those who are capable be witheld to the leevl of the common man, merely due to the incompetance and apathy of others?

Why do ALWAYS equate being rich with hard work...when HARD WORK usually has nothing to do with it?

And why do you ALWAYS equate poor with laziness, when laziness seldom has anything to do with it?

More often than not rich people are untalented people who never worked a day in their lives, but knew the right people, had the right connections, inherited the money or their position or both...or were able and willing to stab others in the back to acquire it.

More often than not, your average poor person works FAR HARDER than your average rich person.

But, then again, most who support Capitalism do so because they are on the benefit-receiving end of it. In Capitalism...the ones who put the most into the system, are also the ones who extract the least from it.

You forgot only 3% of the nation is 'rich' the rest are just 'average' and getting lower every day. Recently I heard that the two US businesses with the most profits were Exxon and Walmart. Isn't that funny the two businesses that Exploit America most. And Oil Company and Oversea products produced by the Exploited Asians working for an outsourced Company.

Generally, though, having been to the USA, life hardly appears hard. Youmay have to work hard? so what, most people do.

And yet, surely prosperity ultimately is beneficient for the entire nation, the finance over time filtering down to the lower orders. Capitalism is not a failure, it alone won the cold war, communism lost it.

Finance does not "filter down" into "the lower order."
Trickle-down econmics, which is what you are describing, was proven to be a failure, for it starts from the fallacious assumption that the rich, and corporations, have ethics and morals. They, in fact, have neither...they have replaced both with a ledger.

And I find your reference to "the lower orders" quite frankly offensive.

I watched a documentary last night where a couple lived on America's minimum wage for 30 days. It was fascinating. Sickening but fascinating.

They had to try and find a flat to rent on that money and were lucky enough to find one who didn't ask fro cash upfront. They ended up in a small, flat above an old crack-den without heating and with no furniture. They couldn't eat much more than beans and rice. They both had to work full time to even begin to make ends meet and after about half the month, the man had to get another job so that he was working two eight-hour shifts.

They were also lucky enough to find a local charity where they offered free furniture.

They had no healthcare insurance. Because of the awful conditions, the woman contracted an infection and because of the physical labour the man was doing, he hurt his wrist. The bills from the hospital were ridiculous; over $1000 dollars simply for geting x-rayed and having a bandage put on. The cost of simply going to hospital was over $500. They ended up in debt by the end of the month.

They had to survive on public transport or walking places and when they couldn't get a bus back, they had to spend about a day's wages on a taxi.

The bills they had to pay, because they had less money were higher priority to companies than asking people who can afford it.

This was without any children, for simply thirty days. It's ridiculous. How are you supposed to get out of that situation? You can't stop working to train for more qualifications. If you had children you'd have to spend even more money and have to work less, to look after them. Your health deteriorates making it harder to work and improve at work.

There's much more I could say. If you get a chance, watch it. It was on More4 by the same guy who did Super Size Me - Merlo Brandon I think.

This is slightly off-topic but this is the life so many people in the US have under the wonderful thing that is capitalism. It isn't right.

And? Why punish the exertions of one's ancestors by compelling those who have the means to survive without work to work? Life is inherently, indiscriminately injust, it is not for you to question why, merely to forge on with the cards you are dealt.

Easy to say if you got dealt a royal flush! But what if you got dealt a fucking pair of deuces?

Some people are willing to lie and cheat to get ahead. Decent people do not do that. So only assholes get ahead.

In our current society, cream no longer rises to the top, but crap sure as hell floats!

Finance does not "filter down" into "the lower order."
Trickle-down econmics, which is what you are describing, was proven to be a failure, for it starts from the fallacious assumption that the rich, and corporations, have ethics and morals. They, in fact, have neither...they have replaced both with a ledger.

And I find your reference to "the lower orders" quite frankly offensive.

Sadly Bush didn't think of that Fact when he gave the Rich the 'Tax cut' to help the little people. Oh wait he did know that but did it anyway!

Finance does not "filter down" into "the lower order."
Trickle-down econmics, which is what you are describing, was proven to be a failure, for it starts from the fallacious assumption that the rich, and corporations, have ethics and morals. They, in fact, have neither...they have replaced both with a ledger.

And I find your reference to "the lower orders" quite frankly offensive.

Its just a reference, and its more benign than the term "poor".

As a Britain, I know little of US policy and economics, yet it seems to be a meritocracy for the most part. All capitalist systems have a progressive tax system, and generally, they ensure at least some quality of life for the poor.

Easy to say if you got dealt a royal flush! But what if you got dealt a fucking pair of deuces?

Some people are willing to lie and cheat to get ahead. Decent people do not do that. So only assholes get ahead.

In our current society, cream no longer rises to the top, but crap sure as hell floats!

Read Voltaire. Life is not fair, or equal, why should it be any more than all animals possess the same physical attributes? I am "getting ahead", and yet am not an "asshole", just motivated. The truly altruistic and benign never rise to the top, it is those motivate to suceed over all others, those with a point to prove.

If Lennin had an once of common sense when he took power in Russia communisim wouldn't be so hated. He should have set up a democratic communisim and that may have failed or succeded but we'll never know for sure. Capitalism is the worst system except for those which have already been tried.

Generally, though, having been to the USA, life hardly appears hard. Youmay have to work hard? so what, most people do.
Very few, if any...people work harder than your average American.

Average Annual Vacation Days per year, by nation:

Italy 42 days per year
France 37 days per year
Germany 35 days per year
Brazil 34 days per year
Britain 28 days per year
Canada 26 days per year
Japan 25 days per year
U.S.A. 13 days per year

Source: http://www.iwantmyvacation.com

Furthermore, 26% of Americans take NO vacations whatsoever!!

People who don't take vacations are more likely to have heart attacks, heart ailments, and other kinds of physical problems.

Source: http://www.iwantmyvacation.com

Very few, if any...people work harder than your average American.

Average Annual Vacation Days per year, by nation:

Italy 42 days per year
France 37 days per year
Germany 35 days per year
Brazil 34 days per year
Britain 28 days per year
Canada 26 days per year
Japan 25 days per year
U.S.A. 13 days per year

Source: http://www.iwantmyvacation.com

Furthermore, 26% of Americans take NO vacations whatsoever!!

People who don't take vacations are more likely to have heart attacks, heart ailments, and other kinds of physical problems.

Source: http://www.iwantmyvacation.com

Admittedly labour laws ought to be altered to enforce compulsory vaction,and a higher minimum wage, however, why punish the fortunate foe the sake of the unfortunate?

Its just a reference, and its more benign than the term "poor".

As a Britain, I know little of US policy and economics, yet it seems to be a meritocracy for the most part. All capitalist systems have a progressive tax system, and generally, they ensure at least some quality of life for the poor.

Actually, I found the term "the lower order" to be FAR MORE OFFENSIVE than simply saying "poor."
Your term implies that somehow, being poor equates to being a lesser person, and a less-worthy person.

Meritocracy, my ass. You explain Mike Brown being appointed head of FEMA then! Meritocracy, my ass! You explain why I, with 15 years of professional experience cannot find a job, simply because I am a transsexual.

As for enduring at least some quality of life for the poor...that safety net is being eagerly ripped away from us by the Republicans...the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Admittedly labour laws ought to be altered to enforce compulsory vaction,and a higher minimum wage, however, why punish the fortunate foe the sake of the unfortunate?

Why not? We currently "punish" the unfortunate for the sake of the fortunate!!

Actually, I found the term "the lower order" to be FAR MORE OFFENSIVE than simply saying "poor."
Your term implies that somehow, being poor equates to being a lesser person, and a less-worthy person.

Meritocracy, my ass. You explain Mike Brown being appointed head of FEMA then! Meritocracy, my ass! You explain why I, with 15 years of professional experience cannot find a job, simply because I am a transsexual.

As for enduring at least some quality of life for the poor...that safety net is being eagerly ripped away from us by the Republicans...the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Yet again, I can only assert my ignorance of American society as a whole, whilst my sympathies for you, prejudice is no reason to be unemployed.:(

I apologise for the term, we are encouraged to use it in place of "poor" or "impoverished".

Moroever, how deplorable are the republicans, I do not like Bush, however, what policies do they actually pursue?

Since without the right to affluence and self-aggrandisment, we are bron to mediocrity, with little other than mindless altruism and apathy to fill our days. Why should those who are capable be witheld to the leevl of the common man, merely due to the incompetance and apathy of others?Because it is only due to the "common man" that there could be any of the things that we take for granted today.
Where would you be if you weren't living in a society?

Why do ALWAYS equate being rich with hard work...when HARD WORK usually has nothing to do with it?

And why do you ALWAYS equate poor with laziness, when laziness seldom has anything to do with it?
Actually, hard work has a lot to to with it, and not wanting to work has a lot to do with it.


More often than not rich people are untalented people who never worked a day in their lives, but knew the right people, had the right connections, inherited the money or their position or both...or were able and willing to stab others in the back to acquire it.
Bullshit. You've just exposed your own jealousy.


More often than not, your average poor person works FAR HARDER than your average rich person.
Bullshit.


But, then again, most who support Capitalism do so because they are on the benefit-receiving end of it.
Bullshit.


In Capitalism...the ones who put the most into the system, are also the ones who extract the least from it.
Bullshit.

Did you have anything that wasn't just a blatant lie?

Yet again, I can only assert my ignorance of American society as a whole, whilst my sympathies for you, prejudice is no reason to be unemployed.:(

I apologise for the term, we are encouraged to use it in place of "poor" or "impoverished".

Moroever, how deplorable are the republicans, I do not like Bush, however, what policies do they actually pursue?

What policies?
Well, for starters, advancing cronies into positions they are unqualified to fill (Mike Brown as an aexample...and thousands drowned in New Orleans as a result of that)
Shipping good jobs overseas. They should PENALIZE companies that send their good jobs overseas in order to avoid paying decent, American wages to decent, American people. The companies do it because it enables them to get around minimum wage requirements, and safety regulations, and child-labor laws we have in this country.
So the big companies move many of their jobs overseas, wither to avoid regulations or higher wages or both...and exploit third-world people, who will work for far less, being as they are not accustomed to the same standard of living that we are...and you cannot compete with someone willing to work for 50 cents a day. Can't live on that in America.
Meanwhile, businesses and wealthy people get huge tax cuts, which they use to line their own pockets, and spread as dividends to stockholders, and the workers are the ones who get screwed.
Bush tried to, by executive order, suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in the hurricane-stricken areas on the Gulf Coast, in order to increase the bottom line of big, well-connected companies overseeing the rebuilding of the blighted areas...and coincidentally, all these companies are run by friends of the Administration (Halliburton being chief among them) and Halliburton, of course, was Dick Cheney's former company, before he became Vice President.

So, what is the Davis-Bacon Act, you ask? It is a law requiring companies doing business with the government (on government contracts) to pay the local prevailing wage to their workers. Bush sought to suspend that Act, on Executive Order, so as to increase the bottom line of comapnies like Halliburton, while the workers who would be doing the work, would be paid far less than local prevailing wage...thus, those hurt worst by the hurricanes, and who had lost everything (often without the resources to replace it) would be hurt yet again!
There was such an outcry over this action that President Bush was forced to backpedal on this one, and re-instate the Davis-Bacon Act in the area.

THAT is the kind of policies the Republicans endorse. And THOSE are the kinds of policies that are encouraged by Capitalism, which is why I so badly hate fucking Capitalism. It's all about screwing over the worker as much as possible, so as to redirect most of the wealth to the already-wealthy, who do none of the actual work.

P.S. There is nothing wrong with a business making a profit. what is wrong is that businesses are now allowed to make OBSCENE PROFITS...and they do so AT THE EXPENSE OF the worker.

Nowadays, companies treat employees as if they were just disposable rags, rather than living breathing human being with a right to a decent standard of living and a certain level of dignity in exchange for a hard day's work.

You do not, as a decent person, become wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

wanna see an example of an American company at it's worst?

Do a Goggle Search on "Atlantic States." It's a pipe company located in Phillipsburg, New Jersey, not too far from where I live.

What they did there is deplorable. And it is becoming ever more commonplace.

Read up on it and tell me that a business ought to be able to treat workers that way, and that businesses ought to be allowed to have so little regard for worker safety.

Actually, hard work has a lot to to with it, and not wanting to work has a lot to do with it.



Bullshit. You've just exposed your own jealousy.



Bullshit.



Bullshit.



Bullshit.

Did you have anything that wasn't just a blatant lie?


your saying "bullshit" does not make it so. Why don't you try coming up with some statistics and such to prove your case? Maybe because you don't have any, because you know I am right and you refuse to admit it?

your saying "bullshit" does not make it so.
And your assertions didn't make what you said so. So why don't YOU try coming up with some stats to prove YOUR assertions? Maybe you didn't in the first place because you're just flat-out making it all up.

Shipping good jobs overseas.
Nothing wrong with that.


They should PENALIZE companies that send their good jobs overseas in order to avoid paying decent, American wages to decent, American people.
Why?

Have you no idea what protectionism does?


The companies do it because it enables them to get around minimum wage requirements, and safety regulations, and child-labor laws we have in this country.
They do it so that items can be cheaper.


So the big companies move many of their jobs overseas, wither to avoid regulations or higher wages or both...and exploit third-world people, who will work for far less, being as they are not accustomed to the same standard of living that we are...and you cannot compete with someone willing to work for 50 cents a day. Can't live on that in America.
Amazingly enough, you can where those people work.


Meanwhile, businesses and wealthy people get huge tax cuts, which they use to line their own pockets, and spread as dividends to stockholders, and the workers are the ones who get screwed.
No.


Bush tried to, by executive order, suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in the hurricane-stricken areas on the Gulf Coast, in order to increase the bottom line of big, well-connected companies overseeing the rebuilding of the blighted areas
No, D-B is a blight on the free-market.

And please--do learn something about capitalism and stop parroting the neo-marxist crap you see on TV and in the movies.

And your assertions didn't make what you said so. So why don't YOU try coming up with some stats to prove YOUR assertions? Maybe you didn't in the first place because you're just flat-out making it all up.

Well, how about, for starters, Wal-Mart teaching workers how to aplly for Medicaid and the like in order to avoid having to give their workers health insurance?

How about Bush attempting to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in the Gulf Coast Region, in order to boost the profits of megacorporations like Halliburton, at the expense of workers?

And, while you're at it, read up on Atlantic States.

Well, how about, for starters, Wal-Mart teaching workers how to aplly for Medicaid and the like in order to avoid having to give their workers health insurance?
Just taking advantage of the rules in place. Nothing wrong with that.


How about Bush attempting to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act in the Gulf Coast Region,
Nothing wrong with that. D-B is a blight on the free-market.


in order to boost the profits of megacorporations like Halliburton, at the expense of workers?
I assume, of course, that you're prepared to show me the White House Memo where that is stated explicitly?


And, while you're at it, read up on Atlantic States.
What about them?

Nothing wrong with that.



Why?

Have you no idea what protectionism does?



They do it so that items can be cheaper.



Amazingly enough, you can where those people work.



No.



No, D-B is a blight on the free-market.

And please--do learn something about capitalism and stop parroting the neo-marxist crap you see on TV and in the movies.


You are brainwashed. You have drunk the Kool-Aid. There's nothing I can do for you. You will continue to refuse to see it until one day it negatively impacts you.

So, you know what? Go to hell. You're on ignore. I post examples, you refute them, and provide no examples of your own, your whole argument is "You are wrong and I am right because I say so." I'm not going to engage in an argument like that.

You are brainwashed.
You've just conceded. Thank you for your cowardice. Thank you as well for demonstrating the childishness of many of the socialists. When they do not get their way, they throw a tantrum.

Change your diaper.

Here you go...you asked about Atlantic States...
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/atla1215_r.htm

This is a link to the Federal Indictment against Atlantic States. The text of it is below...bolds and underlines mine.

12-15-2003 -- Atlantic States, Prisque, et al. -- Indictment/Arrests -- News Release

Major N.J. Iron Pipe Manufacturer, Top Managers Charged in Eight-Year Conspiracy to Pollute, Expose Employees to Danger, Cover up and Impede Investigations

TRENTON, N.J. - A federal Indictment was unsealed today, charging a Phillipsburg, N.J. manufacturer of cast iron pipe and five of its managers with committing flagrant environmental abuses, including regular discharge of oil and paint into the Delaware River, and for maintaining a dangerous workplace that contributed to the death of one employee and the maiming of numerous others, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie announced.

The 35-count Indictment was unsealed with the arrests of Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co. plant manager John Prisque, maintenance supervisor Jeffrey Maury, engineering and environmental manager Daniel Yadzinski and finishing superintendent Craig Davidson. The arrests took place at the plant early this morning. Former Atlantic States human resource manager Scott Faubert was to surrender today at the federal courthouse in Trenton. Each of the defendants was scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni.

The Indictment charges Atlantic States, a subsidiary of McWane Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama, and the named managers, with conspiracy to violate federal clean air and water regulations and laws governing workplace safety, as well as obstruction of criminal and regulatory investigations by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Charges in an Indictment are merely accusations. Each of the defendants is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in federal court.

The privately held McWane Inc. and its subsidiary companies are among the largest manufacturers in the world of ductile iron pipe with more than a dozen plants in the United States and Canada. McWane's products are used primarily for municipal and commercial water and sewer installations.

"This company has a notorious history of wanton pollution of our environment, evading detection at all costs, and ruling the workplace through fear and intimidation of employees, all of which is alleged in this Indictment," Christie said. "The Indictment paints a picture of an anything-goes philosophy in Atlantic Pipe's pursuit of maximum worker output and profits at the cost of worker heath and safety. These were not mere accidents. Rather, the Indictment charges that it was company policy to put employees in harm's way, pollute the environment and continuously cover up criminal acts."

"Companies that break our nation's environmental laws and show blatant disregard for workers' safety will be prosecuted and brought to justice, as is evidenced by this Indictment," said Tom Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

"Flagrant violations of this magnitude will be vigorously pursued," said J.P. Suarez, Assistant Administrator in the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "Enforcement of criminal environmental statutes is a top priority."

Atlantic States and the individual defendants were charged in connection with, among numerous other things, the following events alleged in the Indictment:

• repeated cover ups from health and safety inspectors of crushing injuries to employees, broken bones, amputations and burns from furnaces and molten iron, including among numerous others: a December 2002 incident in which a safety device was removed from a cement mixer, which then amputated three fingers from an employee's hand; and another where an employee lost an eye and had his skull fractured by a broken saw blade with its safety guard removed.

• the March 24, 2000 death of employee Alfred Coxe, who was run over by a forklift with faulty brakes. Before OSHA inspectors arrived, the defendants allegedly repaired the forklift, and later performed a misleading demonstration to make it appear the brakes were fully operational, and lied to inspectors about the incident and subsequently lied, under oath (Faubert and Maury), in a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Coxe's widow.

• the pumping of petroleum-contaminated wastewater on Dec. 4 and 5, 1999, from a cement pit into a stormwater drain that led to the Delaware River, causing an 8.5-mile oily slick on the river.

• the weekly discharge, and the subsequent concealment, of between 50 and 100 gallons of petroleum-contaminated wastewater from at least July 1996 to September 2002, and other specific instances of larger discharges of asphalt paint and oil-contaminated water into the Delaware River.

• using the plant's cupola - a high-intensity, multi-story furnace for the permitted use of melting scrap iron for the pipe fabrication process - for the regular incineration of tires and waste paint.

• routine release and concealment of high levels of pollutants into the air, including carbon monoxide, in violation of government permits and in criminal violation of the federal Clean Air Act. One method alleged in the Indictment involved the pre-planned melting of plate and structural steel in the cupola, rather than scrap iron, with the effect that it produced lower pollution emissions during smoke stack tests and deceived state and federal regulators.

The Indictment alleges that the company and its managers oversaw, allowed or encouraged those and other criminal acts, in an effort to maximize production of iron pipe and to minimize production costs, workers compensation claims and time off for injured employees. The conduct described in the Indictment allegedly occurred between Oct. 31, 1995 and August 2003.

The Indictment alleges that the defendants concealed health and safety violations by routinely falsifying reports to OSHA inspectors, by ordering employees to lie to them, altering existing conditions in advance of OSHA inspections, reinstalling safety devices after accidents to make it appear that they were installed at the time of accidents, and, in February 2000, by obstructing the execution of a search warrant at the Phillipsburg plant.

The Indictment alleges that the company and its managers continuously concealed environmental violations through false statements to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and federal EPA, the altering of pollution data and manipulation of emissions testing procedures and through obstruction of lawful on-site investigations.

The company and plant managers furthered the concealment of the environmental and health and safety violations by maintaining a repressive work environment of intimidation, fear and retaliation, in which employees were threatened with termination or other discipline if they failed to follow orders that led to instances of pollution, or if they complained about safety concerns or pursued workers' compensation claims for job-related injuries, according to the Indictment.

The Indictment charges the company and each of the defendants with conspiracy, which for the individuals carries a maximum penalty of five years and a $250,000 fine, and for the company carries a maximum fine of $500,000. The company is charged in all counts of the Indictment.

Prisque, 54, of Bethlehem, Pa., was charged additionally with four counts of obstruction of an OSHA investigation, three of which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years, one of which carries a maximum 20 years. Prisque is also charged with one count each of violating the Clean Water Act and violating CERCLA (Superfund), each of which carry a maximum prison sentence of three years. He is also charged with one count of violating the Clean Air Act, with a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Faubert, 40, of Easton, Pa., is charged also with two counts of making false statements to OSHA, each of which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years, and two counts of obstructing an OSHA investigation.

Maury, 36, of Tamaqua, Pa., is charged also with separate counts of making false statements to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and OSHA; with obstruction of an OSHA investigation; seven counts of violating the Clean Water Act, and one count of violating CERCLA.

Yadzinski, 60, of Easton, Pa., is charged also with making false statements to the NJDEP and one count of violating the Clean Air Act.

Davidson, 39, of Nazareth, Pa., is also charged with one count of making false statements to NJDEP and 16 counts of violating the Clean Water Act.

The case is being handled by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr. and Assistant U.S. Attorney Norv McAndrew and Andrew Goldsmith, Assistant Section Chief in the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice in Washington.

U.S. Attorney Christie credited Special Agents of the U.S. EPA, under the direction of William V. Lometti, Special Agent in Charge of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division in New York; staff of OSHA's Avenel, N.J. office, under the direction of Patricia K. Clark, OSHA Regional Administrator in New York; the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, under the direction of Commissioner Bradley Campbell; the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Peter Harvey; and the Phillipsburg Police Department.

Defense counsel:

Atlantic States: Robert Ray, Esq. Morristown, N.J.

Prisque: Michael Critchley, Esq. West Orange, N.J.

Faubert: Michael D'Alessio, Esq. West Orange, N.J.

Maury: Michael Pedicini, Esq. Morristown, N.J.

Yadzinski: John Whipple, Esq. Morristown, N.J.

Davidson: Vincent Nuzzi, Esq. Boonton, N.J.

-end-

THIS is the true face of capitalism!!

Here you go...you asked about Atlantic States...
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/atla1215_r.htm
That's nice.

Did you know that 2/3 of all Superfund areas in the US are on US Government owned property? How interesting is that? I mean, you bring up something about "capitalists" wanting to pollute, yet the government itself (which is an extramarket entity) pollutes more. Hmmm. How can that be? Only capitalists pollute, because they are evil and don't care about anything, right? Governmental officials would never allow it, right?

Also, please show how it's the "true face of capitalism".

Here's MORE about Atlantic States...
THIS is the true face of Capitalism!!!

http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1130490570299760.xml?expresstimes?nnj&coll=2

Just a snip from that article...

The October after Coxe's death, Rush testified, he and Prisque had another encounter.

Rush said he requested time off to be with his dying father. Rush fell silent during his testimony and then continued.

In tears, Rush said he told Prisque "my dad only had a few weeks to live."

Rush said Prisque replied by saying "Everybody dies eventually, so quit your bitching and get back to work." Rush said he quit on the spot. His father died that night, Rush said.

Just posted that snip to show what kind of heartless BASTARDS they are at Atlantic States!!!

Here's more....
http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1130404096157370.xml?expresstimes?nnj&coll=2

http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/113031746361990.xml?expresstimes?nnj&coll=2

Isn't capitalism JUST FUCKING GREAT?!?!?

That's nice.

Did you know that 2/3 of all Superfund areas in the US are on US Government owned property? How interesting is that? I mean, you bring up something about "capitalists" wanting to pollute, yet the government itself (which is an extramarket entity) pollutes more. Hmmm. How can that be? Only capitalists pollute, because they are evil and don't care about anything, right? Governmental officials would never allow it, right?

Also, please show how it's the "true face of capitalism".

This is how ALL companies would operate if they were not FORCED to care about worker safety!
And this is the sort of thing companies try to get away with, by shipping jobs overseas.

Ethics and morals do not exist in capitalism, nor does the milk of human kindness, or even basic consideration for other human beings. Only the ledger matters to them.

Here's MORE about Atlantic States...
THIS is the true face of Capitalism!!!
That's nice. Now prove it.

This is how ALL companies would operate if they were not FORCED to care about worker safety!
Prove it.


Ethics and morals do not exist in capitalism,
Prove it.


nor does the milk of human kindness,
Prove it.


or even basic consideration for other human beings.
Prove it.


Only the ledger matters to them.
Prove it.

That's nice. Now prove it.

No. Your turn to do something other than merely contradict me and claim everything I say is bullshit.

YOU come up with a decent company, that treats it's workers right. WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.

No. Your turn to do something other than merely contradict me and claim everything I say is bullshit.

YOU come up with a decent company, that treats it's workers right. WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.

What do you mean by company? Any company or just something other then the service based industry?

No.
Yes. You've offered nothing to support your conclusion.

So support your conclusion.

Prove it.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.

Prove it.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.

Prove it.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.

Prove it.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.

Prove it.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.

I can repeat, too.

Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.
No, it's not. You never supported your conclusion. If you don't support your conclusion, all I have to do is gainsay you or ask you to demonstrate how you got to your conclusion.


Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.
No, it's not. You never supported your conclusion. If you don't support your conclusion, all I have to do is gainsay you or ask you to demonstrate how you got to your conclusion.


Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.
No, it's not. You never supported your conclusion. If you don't support your conclusion, all I have to do is gainsay you or ask you to demonstrate how you got to your conclusion.


Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.
No, it's not. You never supported your conclusion. If you don't support your conclusion, all I have to do is gainsay you or ask you to demonstrate how you got to your conclusion.


Piss off. Your turn to do something other than just contradict me.
No, it's not. You never supported your conclusion. If you don't support your conclusion, all I have to do is gainsay you or ask you to demonstrate how you got to your conclusion.

What do you mean by company? Any company or just something other then the service based industry?


I mean find me any company that places safety ahead of profits, that actually respects and values it's employees, and treats them fairly.

You won't find it.

Nothing wrong with a company making a profit, but you don't do it at the expense of your workers...or your worker's safety!

Since when do employees see a larger share of the increased profits?? workers are the ones taking all the risks, and management and white -collar assholes are the ones making all the money made off the risks being taken by workers!

Yes. You've offered nothing to support your conclusion.

So support your conclusion.

You have done nothing but refute everything I have offered, saying, in effect, "you are wrong because I say so."

You will accept nothing I put out there, so piss off. I'm done arguing with you. It's YOUR turn to contribute something other than flat-out contradiction, and refusal to accept eveidence I submit.

Until YOU do something to support your stand, you can piss off. I'm not going to argue with a brick wall.

I mean find me any company that places safety ahead of profits, that actually respects and values it's employees, and treats them fairly.

You won't find it.
We won't?

So Harley-Davidson doesn't respect and value its employees? Doesn't treat them fairly?


Since when do employees see a larger share of the increased profits?? workers are the ones taking all the risks,
No, they are not.

You have no idea of what you speak.

You have done nothing but refute everything I have offered,
What have you offered? NOTHING!

Until you offer SOMETHING, I'll just ask you to prove your case.

I mean find me any company that places safety ahead of profits, that actually respects and values it's employees, and treats them fairly.

You won't find it.
Define safety.

Nothing wrong with a company making a profit, but you don't do it at the expense of your workers...or your worker's safety!
I don't deny the fact that you need to pay your workers a fare wage and make sure they work in a safe environment but I don't think we should be compeltely taking care of that workers life.

Since when do employees see a larger share of the increased profits?? workers are the ones taking all the risks, and management and white -collar assholes are the ones making all the money made off the risks being taken by workers!
Well those white collar assholes were the ones who came up with the ideas, founded the companies, employed the workers, got the products shipped, paid for advertising, etc. I don't see why they shouldn't get the lions share of the profits and the employees getting a fair wage for their services.

What have you offered? NOTHING!

Until you offer SOMETHING, I'll just ask you to prove your case.

And I won't see it because you are on ignore, because your entire purpose here is simply to arrgivate and to piss people like me off.

I have offered up some evidence, you have refuted it all, and offered up none of your own. I am not going to argue in a manner where I have to prove everything, the other side has to prove nothing, and the opposite side is allowed to make all my arguments just go away without consideration, just because he says so.

that is not an argument.

That is borderline flamebait, as all you are doing is aggrivating me, which is why you are on fucking ignore. goodbye.

Define safety.


I don't deny the fact that you need to pay your workers a fare wage and make sure they work in a safe environment but I don't think we should be compeltely taking care of that workers life.


Well those white collar assholes were the ones who came up with the ideas, founded the companies, employed the workers, got the products shipped, paid for advertising, etc. I don't see why they shouldn't get the lions share of the profits and the employees getting a fair wage for their services.

The problem is...the white collar assholes still get thier lion's share, and the workers DON'T get a fair wage. And are often coerced or forced into forgoing vacations, pay raises, health insurance, basic worker safety...all in the name of more and more production, to increase profits, none of which are then shared with the workers who made those profits possible by often risking their own personal safety, often in violation of laws.

You have not understood a thing I have said. I have never said that it was a bad thing for a company to make a profit. I have said it was bad for them to make a profit AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS...and without passing on a portion of increased profits to workers who made those extra profits possible through their labor.

Look back into history...American History. Read about The Gilded Age. The white collar assholes want to take us back to the days of The Gilded Age. They want to take it all, and fuck the worker. Ever notice how little companies value their employees anymore?
Loyalty doesn't mean shit.
100 attaboys are outdone by one "aw, shit."
The ledger is all that matters.
Worker safety, health, wages...those are all the first things to be sacrificed in the name of increased profits, which are then not shared with the workers who made them possible.

Workers are often afraid to take vacation or sick days for fear of being fired. Even though they, by law, have those days, many employees are afraid to take them, because Corporate America has, by design, created a culture af fear that we had better stand up against, and fast, before we find ourselves back in The Gilded Age.

But, of course, none of you pro-capitalists will ever fucking believe me./...until the day that YOU are the one getting ground up in the machine...until it is YOU that gets, in some way, negatively impacted.

And then you will whine and wonder why you weren't warned. You were. You just chose not to listen, to write us all off as paranoid, lunatic commies, pinkos, leftists, and liberals.

We care about PEOPLE FIRST. We care about the rights and dignities of people, and we place them ahead of corporate profits.

Like I say, you will just pooh-pooh it and ignore the evidence right before your eyes, because you do not want to believe what you see. You will turn a blind eye to it instead, and, by refusing to stand up to the evil empire that is Corporate America...you aill continue to see your rights, and your freedoms and liberties leached away from you until the point you no longer have the ability to fight...and then YOU will be forced to work overtime with no extra pay, to place yourself in harm's way for the corporate bottom line, without fair compensation, and without any recourse should you get injured in so doing.

You'll have no health insurance, you will have no worker's compensation, you will have nothing but a permanently damaged body, and you will be crippled for life...and the company brass will get someone else in to do your job, throw you out in the street, penniless...and they won't have a brass farthing to lose by it.

All because you continued to allow them to abuse their power.

The problem is...the white collar assholes still get thier lion's share, and the workers DON'T get a fair wage. And are often coerced or forced into forgoing vacations, pay raises, health insurance, basic worker safety...all in the name of more and more production, to increase profits, none of which are then shared with the workers who made those profits possible by often risking their own personal safety, often in violation of laws.
Can we have some proof of this. I want to see some actual proof of coercion here. That is a serious allegation. And since we are talking about the capitalist system here one or two isolated incidents don't work. You can't generalize because of a few bad compaines.

You have not understood a thing I have said. I have never said that it was a bad thing for a company to make a profit. I have said it was bad for them to make a profit AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS...and without passing on a portion of increased profits to workers who made those extra profits possible through their labor.
What is at the expense of the worker. Why should the workers who are providing a basic service get more money then the people who came up with the idea, provided the capitol to start the investment, marketed the item, and so on. I see no reason why the assemlbley line workers at say a car plant should get more money then the services they provide. They didn't come up with the idea to make the car. They haven't caused the car to sell. All they do is build it. And they should be paid accordingly.

Look back into history...American History. Read about The Gilded Age. The white collar assholes want to take us back to the days of The Gilded Age. They want to take it all, and fuck the worker. Ever notice how little companies value their employees anymore?
Loyalty doesn't mean shit.
100 attaboys are outdone by one "aw, shit."
The ledger is all that matters.
Worker safety, health, wages...those are all the first things to be sacrificed in the name of increased profits, which are then not shared with the workers who made them possible.
Proof. Your making baseless allegations here.

Workers are often afraid to take vacation or sick days for fear of being fired. Even though they, by law, have those days, many employees are afraid to take them, because Corporate America has, by design, created a culture af fear that we had better stand up against, and fast, before we find ourselves back in The Gilded Age.
Back this up. I've seen more evidence of people not taking vacations because they have so much work to do rather then the fact that Corporate America is looking over our sholders and counting how many vacation days we've taken.

But, of course, none of you pro-capitalists will ever fucking believe me./...until the day that YOU are the one getting ground up in the machine...until it is YOU that gets, in some way, negatively impacted.
Oh thats nice. Say just because we don't espouse your point of view we won't get it. Real good arguement there. Why not just save us the trouble and go LALALALALALA not listening.

And then you will whine and wonder why you weren't warned. You were. You just chose not to listen, to write us all off as paranoid, lunatic commies, pinkos, leftists, and liberals.
USA seems to be doing fine. Granted not as good as previous years but still good enough.

We care about PEOPLE FIRST. We care about the rights and dignities of people, and we place them ahead of corporate profits.
Yea Stalin really cared about the people. He cared so much he just had to kill a whole lot of them. Take a look at the differences between capitalist nations and communist nations and tell me which one you'd rather live in.

Like I say, you will just pooh-pooh it and ignore the evidence right before your eyes, because you do not want to believe what you see. You will turn a blind eye to it instead, and, by refusing to stand up to the evil empire that is Corporate America...you aill continue to see your rights, and your freedoms and liberties leached away from you until the point you no longer have the ability to fight...and then YOU will be forced to work overtime with no extra pay, to place yourself in harm's way for the corporate bottom line, without fair compensation, and without any recourse should you get injured in so doing.
What evidence? You've given 1 example about an isolated incident where someone tried to cover up an accident so workers comp wouldnt be paid. Guess what its under investigation so the system is working.

You'll have no health insurance, you will have no worker's compensation, you will have nothing but a permanently damaged body, and you will be crippled for life...and the company brass will get someone else in to do your job, throw you out in the street, penniless...and they won't have a brass farthing to lose by it.
I fail to see how the majority of companies are like this. Unless you can prove it the chances of this happening from every company is not too great. And if this happens well then you can sue. Its that great part of america called the legal system.

No. Your turn to do something other than merely contradict me and claim everything I say is bullshit.

YOU come up with a decent company, that treats it's workers right. WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.

Try M&S, a very good employeee policy, and an eminent British company.

Moreover, without the affluence generated by Capitalism, how much worse off would the poor be?

And I won't see it because you are on ignore,
Awwww....poor widdle coward. You refuse to back your blatant assertions, and then get pissed when someone dares to challenge your Sacred Beliefs.

What a craven little coward you are.

You offered me NO EVIDENCE for your conclusion that "this is the true face of capitalism". You just gave a story, and gave your conclusion. You provided NO INTERMEDIATE STEPS. So why should I give your conclusion any credence?

Your entire purpose here has been to Blatantly Assert, and then Get Pissed When People Dare Challenge Your Superstition. You're no better than a 4 year-old. I laugh at your inability to construct an argument. I laugh at your intellectual acumen (what little of it there is). I laugh at you, period.

The problem is...the white collar assholes still get thier lion's share, and the workers DON'T get a fair wage.
They do get a fair wage, and until you back your claim, you have nothing.


And are often coerced or forced into forgoing vacations, pay raises, health insurance, basic worker safety...all in the name of more and more production, to increase profits, none of which are then shared with the workers who made those profits possible by often risking their own personal safety, often in violation of laws.
Then I assume you can prove your claim.


You have not understood a thing I have said. I have never said that it was a bad thing for a company to make a profit. I have said it was bad for them to make a profit AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS...and without passing on a portion of increased profits to workers who made those extra profits possible through their labor.
Then you can prove your claim.


Look back into history...American History. Read about The Gilded Age.
There was no such thing.



Workers are often afraid to take vacation or sick days for fear of being fired.
Prove it.


But, of course, none of you pro-capitalists will ever fucking believe me./...until the day that YOU are the one getting ground up in the machine...until it is YOU that gets, in some way, negatively impacted.
We won't believe you because YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE.

Sheesh, you're a child. Stomp your feet some more and pout because we don't believe you. Act like a 4 year-old. That will impress people.

Awwww....poor widdle coward. You refuse to back your blatant assertions, and then get pissed when someone dares to challenge your Sacred Beliefs.

What a craven little coward you are.

Wow, haven't you ever noticed that the left is always right, you can't dare challenge it, ever.:rolleyes:

And she is a coward, I mean who blocks posters who disagree with them? really now, who does that?

Can we have some proof of this.
Proof. Your making baseless allegations here.
Uh-oh. Now you've done it. Lyric will now ignore you because you want the claims backed. You're just supposed to take the claims as GOSPEL and NEVER QUESTION THEM, or else you're just a HEARTLESS GREEDY FAT-CAT CAPITALIST PIGDOG.

Holy shit, you guys are saying this person is the one being immature? Calling people 4-year olds, and stupid, and a baby, and a coward? Wow. I mean I'm not gonna put myself into this argument. But damn, practice maturity if that's what you preach.

Holy shit, you guys are saying this person is the one being immature? Calling people 4-year olds, and stupid, and a baby, and a coward?
Yes. What does one have to do with the other?

1. Can we have some proof of this. I want to see some actual proof of coercion here. That is a serious allegation. And since we are talking about the capitalist system here one or two isolated incidents don't work. You can't generalize because of a few bad compaines.


2. What is at the expense of the worker. Why should the workers who are providing a basic service get more money then the people who came up with the idea, provided the capitol to start the investment, marketed the item, and so on. I see no reason why the assemlbley line workers at say a car plant should get more money then the services they provide. They didn't come up with the idea to make the car. They haven't caused the car to sell. All they do is build it. And they should be paid accordingly.


3. Proof. Your making baseless allegations here.


4. Back this up. I've seen more evidence of people not taking vacations because they have so much work to do rather then the fact that Corporate America is looking over our sholders and counting how many vacation days we've taken.


5. Oh thats nice. Say just because we don't espouse your point of view we won't get it. Real good arguement there. Why not just save us the trouble and go LALALALALALA not listening.


6. USA seems to be doing fine. Granted not as good as previous years but still good enough.


7. Yea Stalin really cared about the people. He cared so much he just had to kill a whole lot of them. Take a look at the differences between capitalist nations and communist nations and tell me which one you'd rather live in.


8. What evidence? You've given 1 example about an isolated incident where someone tried to cover up an accident so workers comp wouldnt be paid. Guess what its under investigation so the system is working.


9. I fail to see how the majority of companies are like this. Unless you can prove it the chances of this happening from every company is not too great. And if this happens well then you can sue. Its that great part of america called the legal system.

1. You know as well as I do that, holding the ultimate power of life or death over their employees, that companies are NOT going to give employees the best deal that they COULD. And, by virtue of the fact that most people do not have the financial resources with which to withstand a long period of unemployment, companies DO hold the power of life and death itself over their workers.

2. when their harder efforts result in more cars or whatever else being made, then they should share in those increased profits, in terms of pay raises, better health benefits, more jobs opening up to ease the workload, etc. These benefits, however, are not usually passed on to the workers who did the actual fucking work.

3. I'm speaking here from personal experience, and offering what one would call anecdotal evidence. I am supporting a conclusion based upon what I have seen of modern-day business practices in terms of how employees are treated. How can you be so blind as to not see it? Airline CEO's, for example, are given huge bonuses while their companies lose money, all because some CEO at a different company got a raise, meanwhile, union workers are constantly asked, or in many cases, forced to give concessions to management, and to accept disgusting rollback in their salaries, and are threatened with their jobs if they will not capitulate. "No give backs from employees? Fine, fuck you, we'll declare bankruptcy, and all of you will be out on the street! Us? Ha, fuck you, we already took care of ourselves! We'll have a golden parachute and a sweetheart pension/retirement/termination package. YOU will be out on the street, peniiless. We don't care. Now you take the pay cuts or find yourself out on the street!" And then try being an employee, and try to declare PERSONAL bankruptcy, with the new bankruptcy laws! Ever notice how it only makes PERSONAL bankruptcy tougher to declare, but does nothing to hamper COMPANIES from declaring bankruptcy?

4. I have already provided, elsewhere styatistics that show the average American takes only about HALF the number of vacation days as the next hardest-working nation. USA gets 13 days, Japan gets 25, on average. You don't mean to tell me Americans don't WANT to take more vacations, and enjoy their own lives, do you? Do you mean to tell me that you think Americans work because they WANT to work, and LOVE to work so much that they would always rather be at work than sunning on a beach somewhere? And remember, that average also includes executives and CEO's who give THEMSELVES a far better deal than they give their employees!

Again, my only evidence for this is anecdotal...what I have personally seen. I have spoken with co-workers who are afraid to take even the sick days they are allotted for fear of being fired. I, myself, was once fired two days after taking an UNPAID sick day. I was a temp employee, and apparently not entitled to ever be sick. Well, one day, I was so sick I could not even get up...I was even barfing into a bedpan! But I was supposed to be at work, right?
Well, in spite of even not being paid, I knew I could not go to work, I was not physically able...and I certainly would not have wanted to get my co-workers sick. Yet, two days later, my assignment was ended. Coincidence? I think not.

5. Why not, BAAWA makes exactly the same "argument" for your side. Why don't you call him on it? Is it because he happens to share the viewpoint you want to hear that you do not call him to make a better argument than "you are wrong, and I am right because I say so?" This is why BAAWA is on ignore. And you're close to being put there, if you won't at least acknowledge the validity of some of my points...and bring your own points to the table.

I refuse to be in an argument where I am always forced to be on the defensive, and the other party refuses to ever take up the defensive position.

6. Say that when it is YOU who is on the unemployment line! At least you acknowledge the economy is shit, compared to a few years ago (like when Clinton was President??) No, USA is not doing good. Nominal wages have gone up, but not actual wages. The fact is the average American had more buying power five years ago than they do now, for the same amount of labor.

And the unemployment rate is far worse than under Clinton, and it does not tell the whole story. Since my benefits have run out, I am no longer considered "unemployed." Therefore, I...and people like me, the long-term unemployed, are no longer counted as unemployed. And not because we have found jobs...but because we have been unemployed for so long, we apparently no longer count as people.

7. Russia was not Communist. There has never been a truly Communist state. Russia bastardized it, and merely replaced private capitalism with state-run capitalism. What I would rather live in is a society that guarantees basic personal freedoms to everyone, and also ensures that everyone will have the minimum survival requirements provided. Those who are able to work shall be put to work. Those who cannot...well, they are not allowed to die. See, in America, they will let you die. The basic American attitude is..."I got mine, fuck you."

8. It's under investigation for how long now? How long before the guilty finally get justice served to them? And how many people had to be killed or maimed before it happened? Coxe is every bit as dead. The other workers are every bit as maimed, and all are still, years later, awaiting justice. Meanwhile, the bastards who run that company are still living wonderful lives at the expense of their workers. I have absolutely no doubt that the allegations brought against this company are true. Companies ARE that evil, and that uncaring. This is my own personal experience speaking. They give a shit about people. They will throw you out with no more thought than they would throw out yesterday's newspaper! For crap reasons, or no reason at all...sometimes, just for pure meanness and retaliation. I have been on the reciving end of a termination for retaliation, and also on the receiving end of a termination for pure meanness.

9. Yeah. Try and get into a courtroom in this country, and see how long it takes you to get justice! Meanwhile, your job is gone, because the first thing that happens when you sue an employer is that you get fired. So now you have no sibsistence, and you will wait YEARS for justice. Meanwhile, the company will do everything it can to poison your well down the road, and to make you suffer for ever exercising your rights against them.

I have just such a personal experience. I sued for discrimination. Neither my former employer or I ever disagreed, formally or otherwise, as to the reason for my termination....only the legality of it. I had an open-and-shut case, in terms of proving the events, since we both agreed on the events. We only disagreed over the legality of them. Yet it took me five years to obtain justice. And all throughout that time, this former employer was giving false and misleading references to potential future employers, and disclosing information they had no business disclosing, information that had no bearing on my job.
Part of the eventual settlement was that they were to cease and desist from such activities forever. I literally had to have a court enforce this, and FORCE them to stop trying to ruin me.

And that is Corporate America for you.

You wonder why I have such a negative opinion of them? Try living the life I have, and see if you come out my end feeling any different than I do!

When YOU are the one who gets ground up in the machine, it tends to make you just a little bit bitter, you know?

Maybe everything is all hunky-dory for you, and you are able to view the world through rose-colored glasses and believe the best of everyone and everything.

Me, because of my experiences, tend to view the world thru jaundice-colored glasses, and I look for, and believe, the worst of everyopne and everything.

Probably the truth lies somewhere in between our two diametrically-opposed views. But I'm betting it's closer to mine than it is to yours.

Can I prove this in a court of law? Hardly. I am basing my allegations on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. The task you are asking of me...with the millions of companies out there...is so daunting, even Clarence Darrow wouldn't be able to do it. But, with all those millions of companies out there...if there really are just a few bad apples...why do I seem to end up always lucky enough to end up working for one of them, rather than one of the good companies of which you speak...and whom you attest are the majority?

You'd think that, by now, in my 16 year professional career, I would have been lucky enough to manage to have worked for at least ONE good company. But I can honestly say I haven't. Every single company I ever worked for was, in one way or another, on the take, and sought to give their employees the rawest deal they could possibly get away with.

Some companies I worked for were worse than others, granted...but I have never worked for what I could honestly consider a good company.

Try M&S, a very good employeee policy, and an eminent British company.



That does me, as an AMERICAN...a whole shitload of good! Find an AMERICAN company like that. and what the hell is M&S...never heard of them. There are probably 100,000 businesses just in America that go by the name M&S, including, i'm sure towing companies, gas stations, corner groceries....so, exactly what is this M&S...and how does it help me, since it isn't even here in AMERICA...where I might find work with it.

Wow, haven't you ever noticed that the left is always right, you can't dare challenge it, ever.:rolleyes:

And she is a coward, I mean who blocks posters who disagree with them? really now, who does that?

Welcome to the club, Chris. You have now pissed me off. Join the Ignore list. I refuse to argue with people whose only argument is "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" and who refuse to ever take up the defensive side of the argument.

Piss off.

Awwww....poor widdle coward. You refuse to back your blatant assertions, and then get pissed when someone dares to challenge your Sacred Beliefs.

What a craven little coward you are.

You offered me NO EVIDENCE for your conclusion that "this is the true face of capitalism". You just gave a story, and gave your conclusion. You provided NO INTERMEDIATE STEPS. So why should I give your conclusion any credence?

Your entire purpose here has been to Blatantly Assert, and then Get Pissed When People Dare Challenge Your Superstition. You're no better than a 4 year-old. I laugh at your inability to construct an argument. I laugh at your intellectual acumen (what little of it there is). I laugh at you, period.

BAAWA: Knock it off, now. Lyric put you on ignore, and continuing to respond to her posts with attacks against her is flamebaiting her, so either you knock it off or you'll get an official warning. Got it?

Holy shit, you guys are saying this person is the one being immature? Calling people 4-year olds, and stupid, and a baby, and a coward? Wow. I mean I'm not gonna put myself into this argument. But damn, practice maturity if that's what you preach.

And you see now why I am putting them on ignore. They refuse to fight fairly.
They refuse to accept any evindence I bring, always telling me prove it prove it prove it...and when I try to do so, they reject, out of hand, any proof I supply...meanwhile, they continue to never back up their own assertions, refuse to ever take up the defensive position...and basically their argument can be boiled down to
"you are wrong, and I am right...and it will always be that way until you can prove otherwise...but you can't prove otherwise, because we will never accept any of your evidence."

THAT is why these people are being placed on ignore. not because they disagree...but because they will not engage in a fair debate...they will not engage in give and take, and the exchange of ideas. So they can go to the Ignore list, and I can return to peace and quiet.

I will not engage in argument where there is no give and take.

BAAWA: Knock it off, now. Lyric put you on ignore, and continuing to respond to her posts with attacks against her is flamebaiting her, so either you knock it off or you'll get an official warning. Got it?

thank you, Euro. And everyone please note...and Euro can back me up....I NEVER REPORTED THIS TO ANY MOD. Euro discovered this one on her own, or with someone else's tip off...not me.

so before you go off claiming I ran, crying, to a Mod, know that I did no such thing.

I simply refuse to engage in argument where there is no give and take.

Welcome to the club, Chris. You have now pissed me off. Join the Ignore list. I refuse to argue with people whose only argument is "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" and who refuse to ever take up the defensive side of the argument.

Piss off.
They're not worth it. You need to try and keep calm and not rise to their childishness.

I'm on your side. They can't seem to provide any argument or evidence. But don't lower yourself to their level and resort to telling them to "piss off".

I've posted about this thread on Moderation because it seems to be getting slightly out of hand, or heated to say the least, and should probably be watched.

Wow, haven't you ever noticed that the left is always right, you can't dare challenge it, ever.

And she is a coward, I mean who blocks posters who disagree with them? really now, who does that?
That's enough, The blessed Chris. If you don't like the way she debates, don't respond to her. Resulting to insults solves nothing.

Welcome to the club, Chris. You have now pissed me off. Join the Ignore list. I refuse to argue with people whose only argument is "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" and who refuse to ever take up the defensive side of the argument.

Piss off.

Lyric: There's a polite way of telling someone tht you're going to ignore them. I would suggest doing that, rather than resulting to an insult (which I have bolded). Don't do it again.

I'm locking this thread, because it seems to be overrun with attacks.

They're not worth it. You need to try and keep calm and not rise to their childishness.

I'm on your side. They can't seem to provide any argument or evidence. But don't lower yourself to their level and resort to telling them to "piss off".

I've posted about this thread on Moderation because it seems to be getting slightly out of hand, or heated to say the least, and should probably be watched.

Good advice. Listen to it.