Page 9 of 26
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:38 pm
by rtopia
deva wrote:
it is called slavery
sorry deva - until now you've done a really good job backing up your "conceptual leaps" but...
..this is bullshit
anyone who applies for a job is applying for that job voluntarily
anyone who accepts a job accepts the job voluntarily
anyone currently working a job with the option to quit without being punished/imprisoned/killed...
...is NOT a slave
this bleak economic picture you paint only exists for those who lack the ambition to do whatever it takes to "get theirs"
I'm currently offering employment nationwide that starts at $15 an hour and I can't find candidates fast enough (hint - anyone interested can PM me)
- r
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:27 am
by knotkranky
deva wrote:knotkranky wrote:deva wrote:
It will be a cold day in hell before I vote Democratic Party
Then hand it to bush
If that must be so, then so be it.
If we got criminals on the left and criminals on the right, then I am not going to vote for either of them.
One of the leading conservatives recently said that conservatives should stop voting republican. He said that the leadership of the republican party has betrayed conservative principles and that even if they lose some elections, it is better to build upon what they believe rather than be suckered into voting for someone they do not want.
I have yet to hear anyone from the liberal establishment take such an intelligent position.
Absolutely the only thing the dems are offering me is that they are not bush. If they think they are going to get my vote with such an empty platform, then they are wrong. If they want my vote, they will have to take some positions that are of value to the average citizen, and then actually mean it. They will have to actually stand for something.
We basically have a 1 party system with 2 management teams vying for who gets to lead in an already chosen direction. I refuse that and so will continue to vote for 3rd party candidates, left or right, who I believe have some integrity and stand for something.
Your republican said to stop voting republican, not stop voting. And yes, party politics change, positions shift and evolve. All parties go through this. Ideas and politicians are always at odds internally so it's not an intelligent position, it's a fact of all political life.
Participation is always better than non participation. Doing anything is better than doing nothing. You need to vote. Pick a party that meets your expectations as close as possible and vote. It's never perfect but it is all anyone has ever had. I won't convince you of which party at this point, and note that my choices for congressional seats are strategic and a cock block on bush, but vote for something. The message that you affirm, even for the underdog is important to the ones who are governed and that's all of us. What good is protesting without a message. Make a protest vote if you have to, but vote.
It is important to note again that this is not a presidential party vote. Make a strategic vote to block republican seats in november and vote libertarian in 2008. Work the system and hog tie bush. The time is now.
Here's a list of balloted electoral parties:
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party)
Here's a big list of political parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:28 am
by knotkranky
rtopia wrote:deva wrote:
it is called slavery
sorry deva - until now you've done a really good job backing up your "conceptual leaps" but...
..this is bullshit
anyone who applies for a job is applying for that job voluntarily
anyone who accepts a job accepts the job voluntarily
anyone currently working a job with the option to quit without being punished/imprisoned/killed...
...is NOT a slave
this bleak economic picture you paint only exists for those who lack the ambition to do whatever it takes to "get theirs"
I'm currently offering employment nationwide that starts at $15 an hour and I can't find candidates fast enough (hint - anyone interested can PM me)
- r
No, you're wrong and you're taking deva out of context. This was in reference to walmart's practices.
Get educated and read this frontline report.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... opsis.html
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:19 am
by philipbarrett
Screw the Democrats & the Republicans - I'm voting for Kinky Freidman.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:04 am
by subterFUSE
I'm voting for Turd Sandwich.
A vote for Turd Sandwich is a vote for tomorrow.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:20 am
by rpsx
might i recommend the Libertarian Party. The pole at the top of this thread is quite limiting - it expressly represents the misconception that we're stuck with these two crapcan organizations. I gave up on both a long time ago. This is the only party that, for me, really represents the true ideals of America. "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils."
Intro:
http://www.lp.org/issues/introduction.shtml
Penn & Teller are Libertarian's:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 17683265&q
Political position quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:26 am
by knotkranky
Priority 1 - Stop Bush.
Take away majority from the republicans in congress with any party that has the best chance to succeed.
Best case scenario? Bush gets impeached and the republican party is damaged, which could open a door
for the Libertarian party.
This is less about the lesser of evils and more about stopping the madness.
Sometimes the best offense is a strong defense. This is chess not checkers. The Libertarians have a
better shot with a dem majority and a better alliance.
We all gain with bush tied up in congress, so what is the best way to accomplish this in november?
Just stop him. There is little else to consider.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:04 am
by rtopia
I'm not wrong.
I challenge you to explain to me - in whatever context - how any "at will" employment situation is slavery.
- r
ps. "flush your headgear" Frontline is just as biased as any cable news channel (which one? take your pick).
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:31 am
by glu
it's the new slavery
the poor are paid servents who cater to (other paid servants) and to the rich, and their exploitation only furthers the dichotemy between these radically different lifestyles.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:07 am
by glitchrock-buddha
glu, where'd you get that picture of me?
dammit, I didn't authorize that!
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:27 am
by knotkranky
rtopia wrote:
I'm not wrong.
I challenge you to explain to me - in whatever context - how any "at will" employment situation is slavery.
- r
ps. "flush your headgear" Frontline is just as biased as any cable news channel (which one? take your pick).
Dude, first off, slave labor in china makes the shirts you buy at walmart. If your cool with that, fine.
deva's reference is to the fact that walmart leaves little choice to communities and has some
of the most unfair labor practices around. Walmart is bad news. Don't shop there.
Two, Frontline is one of the most respected on the planet. If you don't buy that then we have nothing.
Third, I am not interested in arguing semantics. Are you cool with walmart or not ?
Four, we may have some kind of misunderstanding.
Five, I only care that the republicans lose there majority in congress. Stop Bush. Please vote for your democratic congressman in november.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:22 am
by bigbadotis
why liberals want to take jobs away from underprivileged minorities and immigrants (by raising the minimum wage) is beyond me
bigbadotis wrote:Me too! I just read in the New York Times that the Democratic Party is going to adopt "Take Jobs Away From Minorities" as its 2008 campaign slogan. It's crazy!
Would you mind posting the ny times article url ?
So, you believe in not raising minimum wage?
Maybe my sense of humor is too subtle. No, the democrats are not going to adopt that as their campaign slogan. I just thought the original posters' leap in logic (equating raising the minimum wage to wanting to take jobs away from minorities) was ridiculous. So I decided to post something equally ridiculous in response.
Please, raise the minimum wage. How our leaders can vote themselves huge pay increases and leave the minimum wage at the current level for so long boggles the mind.
Of course, Democratic leaders receive those pay raises too...
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:06 pm
by subterFUSE
Please, raise the minimum wage. How our leaders can vote themselves huge pay increases and leave the minimum wage at the current level for so long boggles the mind.
Because it is widely beleived that raising the minimum wage will actually hurt workers, particularly teenagers and low-skilled minorities.
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/ar ... rticle=336
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1176.cfm
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:17 pm
by knotkranky
Hello, McFly, the wage can't even keep pace with gas prices, let alone standard of living and they said the same thing in the 80's at 3.35 an hour.
Right, you're really worried about the teenagers and the low skilled minorities.
Yes sF, please explain your empathy for the under privileged.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:59 pm
by bigbadotis
Please, raise the minimum wage. How our leaders can vote themselves huge pay increases and leave the minimum wage at the current level for so long boggles the mind.
Because it is widely beleived that raising the minimum wage will actually hurt workers, particularly teenagers and low-skilled minorities.
If our wise leaders really believe that, then they should put the money from their raises towards educational initiatives that would improve job prospects of the people that would be "hurt".