The Age of Corporate Treason

[longknife]

read my entire post, I said ban lobbying

Rather simplistic, don't you think?

What if you and others of a like mind would like to express your views to Congressmen and you can't leave your jobs to go to Washington? Would you like it if you were unable to get someone to go and do it for you?

"Lobbying" has become a pejorative word because of the "professional" lobbyists who are nothing but ex-politicians. I would NOT ban lobbying [you couldn't anyway as it's a constitutional guarantee] but would ban politicians from being paid lobbyists FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!!!

 

[JoeNormal]

Surprised you actually went to college as something other than a janitor.
If you can't define something then you can't speak intelligently about it. No problem for you, I understand. But there it it.

I thought Mike K did a good job of defining greed but apparently you and Kevin didn't think so. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

 

[The Rabbi]

I thought Mike K did a good job of defining greed but apparently you and Kevin didn't think so. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

OK, based on your definition there is no greed in corporate America. Thus no problem.

Excessive wealth is subjective. The people angling for multi million dollar contracts do not think those compensations are excessive. It cannot be at the expense of others because both sides of the negotiation have to agree. The people granting the compensation would not agree to something that disadvantaged them. You can want money as much as you'd like but until you can get someone else to agree to it it is without result.
OK, you've failed this particular exercise.

 

[longknife]

Okay, a question - how many of you avowed liberals here own stocks or have an IRA?

Afraid to answer?

 

[JoeNormal]

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

OK, based on your definition there is no greed in corporate America. Thus no problem.

Excessive wealth is subjective. The people angling for multi million dollar contracts do not think those compensations are excessive. It cannot be at the expense of others because both sides of the negotiation have to agree. The people granting the compensation would not agree to something that disadvantaged them. You can want money as much as you'd like but until you can get someone else to agree to it it is without result.
OK, you've failed this particular exercise.

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

 

[jasonnfree]

Being created in the U.S. is merely a fact of geography, and has no meaning; they "rose to immense profit" because they provided a good or service to consumers better, or at least as good, as their competitors, not merely because of their workforce; bailouts are evidence of corporatism, not capitalism; and the U.S. military protects the state's interests, and only the state's interests.

Our Military protects corporate interests. Our military presence in the middle east is to protect the oil companies. I did time in the Navy mostly because I didn't want to get drafted. Involuntary servitude? Maybe, none the less, I helped make the international shipping lanes safe for big oil. And I don't even get a discount at the pump for that.

 

[jasonnfree]

I just figured out the new social contract in 2013, in the 1920's we had the Unions, in the 2013 we need a revoloution against big box stores. stop going, stop buying cheap crap from china. Crash the Walmarts, lowes of the US..... the local stores will come back with higher prices and the employees will get a "living wage". dont buy fucking cheap, buy for quality.....Buy local.

Why not just make your buying decisions based on your own economic interests, and allow everyone else to do the same? That way, we all benefit from an open market.

The idea that you, the government, or anyone else, has the intelligence to contrive some system that guarantees everyone a living wage, and still allows for personal freedom and good economic growth, is so assinine as to be pure fantasy.

Can you imagine any bureaucrat, or group of bureaucrats, that have the knowledge and intelligence to determine what the needs and desires of over 300 million people are going to be next year? Can you even imagine what the impact would be of government determining what kind of cars we will be allowed to purchase in the future?

Capitalism is not always pretty, but it is far better than any other system for providing the needs of a society.

Tom Paine was one of the founders and he advocated for a basic minimum income.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. One of the things that kept greed somewhat in check was the imprecision of its definition. Few people wanted to be perceived as greedy so they tended not to push the envelope. The upper echelons of coroorate power have become so clogged with sociopathic douchebags that the perception has lost its sting. I'd like to bring it back.

Good for you. It's still subjective nonsense with no meaning.

Do you delete subjective terms from your lexicon?

You don't use them as if they were objective.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

OK, based on your definition there is no greed in corporate America. Thus no problem.

Excessive wealth is subjective. The people angling for multi million dollar contracts do not think those compensations are excessive. It cannot be at the expense of others because both sides of the negotiation have to agree. The people granting the compensation would not agree to something that disadvantaged them. You can want money as much as you'd like but until you can get someone else to agree to it it is without result.
OK, you've failed this particular exercise.

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

If it's the only game in town people will fight over slave wages. What I don't understand is why so many ordinary Americans think that we have an equitable system when the wealth inequality favors the very wealthy. Settling for very low wages is becoming the only game in town by the way. There are more "free trade" deals in the works, thanks Obama, and both parties are pushing for drastic increases in immigration to flood the country with third worlders eager to work for any wages offered. This is corporate America's solution to get cheap labor for jobs they can't send to third world nations.

 

[bripat9643]

Doing something legal is treason?

Must be part of that lefty hope and change crap, compliments of the low info dopes.

Liberals are trying to redefine treason to mean being a conservative.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you delete subjective terms from your lexicon?

I'm not a computer, I don't delete things.

Are they still in your vocabulary but you choose not to use them?

You realize that understanding something is an opinion rather than a fact doesn't mean one can't still have opinions, right? So you can think all of these people are greedy, you just need to understand that that's your opinion and not a rational basis for using the force of government to go after them.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought Mike K did a good job of defining greed but apparently you and Kevin didn't think so. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

What you call a "focus on minutae" is in reality a focus on objectivity. No matter how you slice and dice it, there is no objective way to quantify "greed." You refuse to admit that because it blows your lame theories on re-engineering society out of the water. They will never work, and one of the main reasons is that they are based on utterly bogus premisses like "greed."

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

The Higgs Boson will only be found if it actually exists - in other words, if it's an objective fact. A libturd like you would spend his life searching for unicorn farts to power your planned utopia

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I thought Mike K did a good job of defining greed but apparently you and Kevin didn't think so. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Because you posited something and I'm asking you to defend it.

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

And yet none of the terms you used here have any scientific meaning whatsoever. So your analogy to the Higgs Boson is not applicable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

OK, based on your definition there is no greed in corporate America. Thus no problem.

Excessive wealth is subjective. The people angling for multi million dollar contracts do not think those compensations are excessive. It cannot be at the expense of others because both sides of the negotiation have to agree. The people granting the compensation would not agree to something that disadvantaged them. You can want money as much as you'd like but until you can get someone else to agree to it it is without result.
OK, you've failed this particular exercise.

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

It sounds like in your world those people would somehow be better off unemployed, have I got that right?

 

[Snookie]

When the taxes get so large they are confiscatory and harmful, it is not treason to oppose them or avoid them.

At one time it was treason to deny the King first night rights in a marriage.

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

Yes it's called patriotism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Being created in the U.S. is merely a fact of geography, and has no meaning; they "rose to immense profit" because they provided a good or service to consumers better, or at least as good, as their competitors, not merely because of their workforce; bailouts are evidence of corporatism, not capitalism; and the U.S. military protects the state's interests, and only the state's interests.

Our Military protects corporate interests. Our military presence in the middle east is to protect the oil companies. I did time in the Navy mostly because I didn't want to get drafted. Involuntary servitude? Maybe, none the less, I helped make the international shipping lanes safe for big oil. And I don't even get a discount at the pump for that.

The state's interests coincided with the business's interest. It's nothing new. It's called corporatism and has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

When the taxes get so large they are confiscatory and harmful, it is not treason to oppose them or avoid them.

At one time it was treason to deny the King first night rights in a marriage.

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

Yes it's called patriotism.

No, it's called self-immolation. Liberals impose draconian taxes and regulations on business and then whine and call them traitors when businesses move their operations to a more agreeable environment. I'd say the people who gave them a good reason to leave are the traitors.

 

[Snookie]

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

Yes it's called patriotism.

No, it's called self-immolation. Liberals impose draconian taxes and regulations on business and then whine and call them traitors when businesses move their operations to a more agreeable environment. I'd say the people who gave them a good reason to leave are the traitors.

They left when nixon opened the chinese flood gates.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd have defined it as the desire for excessive material wealth at the expense of others.

Then of course you'd have said "define excessive".

Then I'd have said going beyond necessary or proper.

Then you'd have said "define necessary and proper"....

Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course this mindless focus on minutae is typical of right wingers. You're probably wired that way and just can't help it. But in addition to being mindlessly tedious, it gets one no closer to understanding an issue.

This is why conservatives aren't scientists. A liberal would find the Higgs Boson before a conservative decided what matter was.

OK, based on your definition there is no greed in corporate America. Thus no problem.

Excessive wealth is subjective. The people angling for multi million dollar contracts do not think those compensations are excessive. It cannot be at the expense of others because both sides of the negotiation have to agree. The people granting the compensation would not agree to something that disadvantaged them. You can want money as much as you'd like but until you can get someone else to agree to it it is without result.
OK, you've failed this particular exercise.

It sounds like in your world, the people who work long hours in hazardous sweatshops for a pittance aren't wage slaves because they agreed to work under those conditions. Have I got that right?

Yeah. Because it obviously beats their alternatives in life. Like starving to death. You'd rather people starve to death than have the choice. That's the difference.
But that is irrelevant to the ass-pounding I just gave your post. You did not refute a single thing I wrote, just changed the subject.

 

[Snookie]

Slavery is better than starvation?^