Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Greed.What drove those companies away?Well given there are only two choices Private and Public, since you seem to hate the idea of Private that leaves only public. So I guess that assumption came from some idiot who listens to madcow all day.
Jones and Lauglin Steel. Bethlehem Steel. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel. US Steel. Rubbermaid. Sterling China Co. Louthan Foundry.
Just some of the privately owned corporations which have abandoned America. They took the works. The factories, the jobs, the opportunities for working families to make a good future here and sent them all to Asia and Mexico.
That's why I don't trust corporatations. They get the best from American workers and then fold up their tents and steal away in search of greater profits. I wonder how they (the corporations) can still imagine having paying customers when they take the jobs away.
Those greedy bastards, greedily refusing to give you any of their stuff!Greed.What drove those companies away?Jones and Lauglin Steel. Bethlehem Steel. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel. US Steel. Rubbermaid. Sterling China Co. Louthan Foundry.
Just some of the privately owned corporations which have abandoned America. They took the works. The factories, the jobs, the opportunities for working families to make a good future here and sent them all to Asia and Mexico.
That's why I don't trust corporatations. They get the best from American workers and then fold up their tents and steal away in search of greater profits. I wonder how they (the corporations) can still imagine having paying customers when they take the jobs away.
The same thing driving the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The same thing driving Israel's occupation of Area C and Gaza.
The same thing driving "Government" Sachs.
The same thing driving the wealth inequality in the US.
Not yours. That's because I'm normal.Which side are you on?
Wrong.Those greedy bastards, greedily refusing to give you any of their stuff!Greed.What drove those companies away?
The same thing driving the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The same thing driving Israel's occupation of Area C and Gaza.
The same thing driving "Government" Sachs.
The same thing driving the wealth inequality in the US.
Wrong answer, but completely in character.
Not yours. That's because I'm normal.Which side are you on?
Sounds slightly circular.I'm on the good guys' side.
Do you know what side is that?
It's whatever side I'm on.
Wrong.
You're corporate.
Anxious for a return of the Robber Barons?
"The Robber Baron Era was a period of misery for the millions of Americans who worked in factories before child labor laws, the eight-hour day and 40-hour work week, workplace safety laws (think of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire), or recognition of collective bargaining rights.
"It was a time of widespread political corruption, with officeholders in cahoots with the chiefs of monopolies and near-monopolies. Laissez-faire capitalism was mostly unchecked by the power of unions or by government regulation. It ended with a period of widespread labor unrest and the reforms of the Progressive Era (1890s through the 1920s)."
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."Wrong.
You're corporate.
Anxious for a return of the Robber Barons?
"The Robber Baron Era was a period of misery for the millions of Americans who worked in factories before child labor laws, the eight-hour day and 40-hour work week, workplace safety laws (think of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire), or recognition of collective bargaining rights.
"It was a time of widespread political corruption, with officeholders in cahoots with the chiefs of monopolies and near-monopolies. Laissez-faire capitalism was mostly unchecked by the power of unions or by government regulation. It ended with a period of widespread labor unrest and the reforms of the Progressive Era (1890s through the 1920s)."
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
Common Dreams? They should rename that site to Common Drug-Fueled Paranoid Fantasies.
Neocons! Booga booga!
Sounds slightly circular.
"I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." -- Pete Seeger"
Pete or Barry?
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."
Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?
See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
Agreed, Sparky.Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests
and that's the real root of the matter George, we the people, or they the corporatists....
We have to pass a constitutional amendment to end [the] Citizens United ruling that brings forth the radical opinion that a Corporation is not a person and a handful of billionaires cannot pollute and take over the political system by spending unlimited sums of money in secret to elect candidates who support their agenda,
Sen. Sanders calls for constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United*|*Raw Replay
the av Joe basically agreeing>
The Washington Current: Massive 6-to-1 Majority Favors Tougher Regulation of Wall Street
the math to get there elementary>
A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis finds that the 48 senators who sided with Big Oil received over $21 million in career oil contributions, while 52 senators who sided with the American people received only $5.4 million in contributions. Each senator who voted for Big Oil received on average more than four times as much oil cash as those who voted to end the subsidies
ThinkProgress » Filibuster To Protect Big Oil Welfare Fueled By Oil Money
While you and Barry want(ed) to turn Vietnam into Nagasaki.Sounds slightly circular.
"I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." -- Pete Seeger"
Pete or Barry?
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
I actually agree with that. You and Pete Seeger want to turn the clock back to when people ate bugs and grass, starved on a regular basis and died horrible painful deaths from lack of modern medical care.
Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."
Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?
See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
The Constitution doesn't protect enemy combatants caught on the battlefield without a uniform.
The Constitution once protected US citizens from warrantless surveillance in their homes.Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."
Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?
See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
The Constitution doesn't protect enemy combatants caught on the battlefield without a uniform.
Agreed, Sparky.
I just don't see how we'll ever accomplish a real Change of that magnitude by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.
a one party system, the $$$ party, cloaked in rhetorials engineered toward the illusion of choice George... This is why any 3rd party is usually demonized , and summarily dismissed btw...
Wall Street and the richest 1% of Americans control both major parties in this country through campaign donations primarily.
With the rare exception of a Senator Sanders or a Kucinich or Ron Paul (?) limiting change to Republican OR Democrat Changes Nothing fundamental about the class war.
they're painted radical for opting out of the status quo, the usual class envy canards follow them like ugly on an ape
FLUSH a hundred (or two or three) Republicans AND Democrats from DC in a single news cycle and replace them with established third party candidates already on many ballots (primarily Greens and Libertarians) and Wall Street and the Pentagon have problems they have never seen before. (and so do the rest of us)
well, we're talking epidemic proportions now, the rubicon's been crossed....
The internet makes it conceivable to motivate the 30 to 40 percent of eligible voters who usually don't see anything worth voting FOR to get involved and vote AGAINST the status quo.
agreed the 'net can be enlightening, for those who effectively utilize it's depth and breath.
in fact, were i wearing my tin hat, i'd lay claim it's actively monitored
The Constitution once protected US citizens from warrantless surveillance in their homes.Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."
Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?
See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.
Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams
The Constitution doesn't protect enemy combatants caught on the battlefield without a uniform.
Remember?
YES !Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.You say I have blinders on, but refuse to consider why your own view is so narrow.
I guess you missed the part where I said companies have had a role in their relocation. Can you admit that it's not always their choice?
As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.
Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.
Okay, let's say the steel companies stayed here and had to pay high environmental costs and higher wages. How did you expect them to compete with foreign steel then and stay in business? Wouldn't the end result be the same? No more steel companies? Or are you deluding yourself that they could have just made a smaller profit and stay operational?
