Jealous Socialists Hate Wal-Mart
Do why do people hate Wal-Mart so much? I think it's primarily because of their success -- everyone that hates them is jealous that one company should do so good. Well, to those people, I say, "Screw you."
In MD, the legislature just overrode a veto by the governor and passed a new law that requires large companies (ONLY Wal-Mart in MD) to set aside 8% of their payroll costs to buy insurance for workers. I'm not sure why the legislature of Maryland thinks they have the right to do that, but I'm not an expert on the MD Constitution. Apparently there's a clause in there that says laws can be passed to punish businesses. Now, if I were Wal-Mart, with all the assets they have, I'd do one of two things right away -- only in Maryland: 1. Cut all employees salaries by exactly 8%. The legislature wants to force them to pay 8% from the salaries? Take it from the employees -- the people with the power to get the morons out of the legislature. Or 2. Close all Wal-Marts in MD indefinitely. Just shut all the doors, all at once, all of a sudden -- no warning at all. Then see if any people complain to their alleged representatives in the legislature. (H/T to Michelle Malkin).
Comments
1
Big Business vs Small Business.
Democrats are for Small Business, Republicans are for Big Business.
No big mystery.
Personally I do not think Big Business needs help, but as long as you do...go for it!
I'm more of a David than a Goliath.
Democrats are for Small Business, Republicans are for Big Business.
No big mystery.
Personally I do not think Big Business needs help, but as long as you do...go for it!
I'm more of a David than a Goliath.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 13, 2006 03:55 PM (ELJo9)
2
This isn't about helping big business, it's about severely punishing those who succeed because of jealously.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 03:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
I would shut it down. Send a press release stating that other companies are suddenly being given an unfair business advantage and that the extortion of the legistlature will not be tolerated.
Start liquidating merchandise by having it hauled out of the state and sold elswhere, even if it was at a loss.
Then watch the local economies go nuts when there is a lack of items and the true free market takes over and people are paying thrice the price.
Start liquidating merchandise by having it hauled out of the state and sold elswhere, even if it was at a loss.
Then watch the local economies go nuts when there is a lack of items and the true free market takes over and people are paying thrice the price.
Posted by: kender at January 13, 2006 05:50 PM (K27Zg)
4
Also, I'm not sure how you see that Democrats support small business. Democrats are huge union supporters -- and unions crush small businesses. Democrats are big on government regulation -- which not only destroys small business, but also reduces competition, helping big business. Democrats love enormous amounts of government spending -- and government contracts usually support and strengthen big business. I don't actually see any support for small businesses by Democrats at all.
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 08:06 PM (/k+l4)
5
Ogre, by attacking small business via red-tape and supporting big business via reducing competition the Dems also tell all the "little guys" that they "are for the little guy." I wonder if all the little guys are aware that they aren't being kissed while they get screwed by the Dems?
Posted by: GM Roper at January 13, 2006 10:41 PM (RBjnG)
6
I would think stores like Wal Mart would close up; after all the motto of their business is to keep prices low...how can they do this when the socialists come up with stupid laws like this?
If I were the big whig at Walmart I would close shop in MD...then we'de see 17000 people umemployed and needing help. Sheesh.
If I were the big whig at Walmart I would close shop in MD...then we'de see 17000 people umemployed and needing help. Sheesh.
Posted by: Raven at January 13, 2006 11:52 PM (8xpPC)
7
Anonymous,
Two things are wrong with your statement.
1. Democrats aren't for any business (big or small) unless it's one that offeres laborers sweat equity.
2. The reason people go into business is to make money. Why start a business if you don't want it to grow and maybe, someday, become a big business?
Two things are wrong with your statement.
1. Democrats aren't for any business (big or small) unless it's one that offeres laborers sweat equity.
2. The reason people go into business is to make money. Why start a business if you don't want it to grow and maybe, someday, become a big business?
Posted by: LASunsett at January 14, 2006 12:16 AM (G/2V5)
8
Actually I hate Wal-mart. I won't shop there, call me a socialist if you want, but I don't like them at all.
This, however, is bullshit. Health Insurance is a priveledge not a right.
This, however, is bullshit. Health Insurance is a priveledge not a right.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:53 AM (e8b4J)
9
Mr. Ogre -- I find this whole exercise intriguing. By simply mentioning Wal-Mart, I am participating in good ol' free word-of-mouth advertizing for them...even if it is negative, since folks like you will come along, defend them, and make yourself into a loyal customer of their chintz. Not much to brag about, really. And note...most of the institutions youze guys defend are big business, not small business; big religion, not small religion; big sports, not small sports; big cars, not small cars. In other words...quantity, not quality.
Small business thrived under Clinton, and has suffered under Bush. Even some big businesses are beginning to suffer under Bush. The economy rises because they know now they can chunk pensions. Not all small businesses want to become big businesses. Sustainability and, again, quality, being prized over growth.
Republicans are the brave defenders of the rich and big. Democrats are the brave defenders of the poor and small. Including business. Not exclusively, and not always...just in general.
Wal-Mart doesn't need your defense. They are fair game.
Oops...gotta unplug. My birthday storm approacheth!
Peace
Dave
Small business thrived under Clinton, and has suffered under Bush. Even some big businesses are beginning to suffer under Bush. The economy rises because they know now they can chunk pensions. Not all small businesses want to become big businesses. Sustainability and, again, quality, being prized over growth.
Republicans are the brave defenders of the rich and big. Democrats are the brave defenders of the poor and small. Including business. Not exclusively, and not always...just in general.
Wal-Mart doesn't need your defense. They are fair game.
Oops...gotta unplug. My birthday storm approacheth!
Peace
Dave
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 14, 2006 01:29 AM (dre4x)
10
I'm not sure you answered the question. I gave examples where Democrats support big business at the expense of small business. And no one here was actually supporing Wal-Mart -- one person even said they HATE Wal-Mart and don't shop there, but this is still WRONG.
Government telling private business what they can do with their profits is WRONG -- I don't care if it's Microsoft or a Lemonade stand.
Democrats, as I have pointed out, are NOWHERE NEAR defenders of the little guy. They do, however, operate as you did in your response -- you just claim they're for the little guy, and therefore it must be true, right?
Government telling private business what they can do with their profits is WRONG -- I don't care if it's Microsoft or a Lemonade stand.
Democrats, as I have pointed out, are NOWHERE NEAR defenders of the little guy. They do, however, operate as you did in your response -- you just claim they're for the little guy, and therefore it must be true, right?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:29 AM (+Gl1m)
11
government, rather than forcing a horrible company like walmart to provide health benefits, should be finding a way to provide health care for all americans. walmart is a horrible corporation for numerous reasons, among which one can count its terrible treatment of employees. the issue here, however, highlights the need for a true national health care program.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 02:51 AM (2MgCT)
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 03:01 AM (+Gl1m)
13
It is truly a sad state of affairs when government assumes control of private business. Oh, what the hell am I saying...government does everything else so very well.
Posted by: GBlagg at January 14, 2006 04:09 AM (vAHKC)
14
the freedom to not be able to afford proper medical care? the freedom to have to run to emergency care even for small issues because of an inability to afford a physician?
what freedom are you talking about?
what freedom are you talking about?
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 04:55 AM (2MgCT)
15
People please. I'm going to make this simple.
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege.
Get over it, I don't even want to think what my cost of business would be with all the regulations the damn dems want. Everytime a government regulation is passed on health insurance, the cost of said insurance raises.
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege.
Get over it, I don't even want to think what my cost of business would be with all the regulations the damn dems want. Everytime a government regulation is passed on health insurance, the cost of said insurance raises.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 05:14 AM (e8b4J)
16
"Health Insurance
Is
a
Privalege. "
we should make hospital visits and police protection PRIVILEGES.
the same way a dictionary and education seem to have been PRIVILEGES contagion didn't get hah.
Is
a
Privalege. "
we should make hospital visits and police protection PRIVILEGES.
the same way a dictionary and education seem to have been PRIVILEGES contagion didn't get hah.
Posted by: steve at January 14, 2006 06:18 AM (2MgCT)
17
Steve -- something cannot be a right if it requires taking something from someone else.
I'll explain more here:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/151554.php
I'll explain more here:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/151554.php
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:18 PM (+Gl1m)
18
anonymoses said : "big religion, not small religion". so is this person advocating we all join a cult? Just wondering.
BTW, I hate walmart, but not because of their business practices. I don't like most of their merchandise, (mostly crap) BUT I simply despise the gutter dwelling scum that shop their out of necessity. I am in L.A., and the class of people we get in the walmarts here are scary....depending on area it is either ghetto, barrio or trailer trash.
I simply choose NOT to shop there and deal with the people that frequent that store. Same reason I will pay more for groceries and other goods. I choose to pay more to avoid dealing with people I would rather not associate with or be around.
*disclaimer for braindead readers of this comment section* Yes, I am being elitist...it is my right as an American, and if you don't like it too bad.
BTW, I hate walmart, but not because of their business practices. I don't like most of their merchandise, (mostly crap) BUT I simply despise the gutter dwelling scum that shop their out of necessity. I am in L.A., and the class of people we get in the walmarts here are scary....depending on area it is either ghetto, barrio or trailer trash.
I simply choose NOT to shop there and deal with the people that frequent that store. Same reason I will pay more for groceries and other goods. I choose to pay more to avoid dealing with people I would rather not associate with or be around.
*disclaimer for braindead readers of this comment section* Yes, I am being elitist...it is my right as an American, and if you don't like it too bad.
Posted by: kender at January 14, 2006 06:11 PM (k5SaN)
19
Oh yeah, the quality of stuff there really stinks, too. It's less expensive because it's cheap!
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:40 PM (+Gl1m)
20
I share Kender's elitism. I know from experience that there is little to no commonality with the Wal-Mart class, and have to shield my eyes on those rare occasions I make a purchase there. Like Steven Wright, I have a fear of widths, and the corpulence of shoppers there is legion, massive and mechanical.
My preference is to shop locally, and it doesn't much matter if the owner is a Democrat or a Republican.
I'm too lazy this morning to provide proof of Democrats supporting small business. Prehaps you should go to Boston, San Francisco, Manhattan or other groovy places and note the thousands of democratic-owned small businesses for yourself. Or recall the pullulation of small businesses under Clinton's watch.
Sure, some big businesses are run by Democrats. Berkshire-Hathaway, Bank of America, Ben and Jerry's, etc. And some small businesses are run by Republicans. But small businesses haven't been growing and thriving under Bush like they thrived under Clinton. I know more than one small business owner here in Charlotte who are disappointed, to say the least, in their poor choice of vote...after they had helped elect the very party who has caused all their pain.
Democrats don't instinctively hate big business. But we do see big business as not being immune from scrutiny or competition.
But alas...dinosaur companies will go the way of other dinosaurs. They are the plantations of today.
In the early days, Bush Inc. made promises, and many people bought into their blather. But time has shown Bush Inc. to be, mediocre, corrupt, greedy, cheating liars who only care for those who least need it. A reverse Robin Hood. The poor get to die and go broke so the rich may have more money and power.
There is no oblesse oblige in this corrupt and egocentric gang. Nor is there in defending them.
Look at the record. The Bush record is abysmal. The stock market bubble will burst once people realize it is buoyed by the giddiness of being able to shed pesky pensions. People like for their company to honor their contracts.
The backlash has only just begun...
But keep waving the pom-poms! I'm a big fan of bathos.
My preference is to shop locally, and it doesn't much matter if the owner is a Democrat or a Republican.
I'm too lazy this morning to provide proof of Democrats supporting small business. Prehaps you should go to Boston, San Francisco, Manhattan or other groovy places and note the thousands of democratic-owned small businesses for yourself. Or recall the pullulation of small businesses under Clinton's watch.
Sure, some big businesses are run by Democrats. Berkshire-Hathaway, Bank of America, Ben and Jerry's, etc. And some small businesses are run by Republicans. But small businesses haven't been growing and thriving under Bush like they thrived under Clinton. I know more than one small business owner here in Charlotte who are disappointed, to say the least, in their poor choice of vote...after they had helped elect the very party who has caused all their pain.
Democrats don't instinctively hate big business. But we do see big business as not being immune from scrutiny or competition.
But alas...dinosaur companies will go the way of other dinosaurs. They are the plantations of today.
In the early days, Bush Inc. made promises, and many people bought into their blather. But time has shown Bush Inc. to be, mediocre, corrupt, greedy, cheating liars who only care for those who least need it. A reverse Robin Hood. The poor get to die and go broke so the rich may have more money and power.
There is no oblesse oblige in this corrupt and egocentric gang. Nor is there in defending them.
Look at the record. The Bush record is abysmal. The stock market bubble will burst once people realize it is buoyed by the giddiness of being able to shed pesky pensions. People like for their company to honor their contracts.
The backlash has only just begun...
But keep waving the pom-poms! I'm a big fan of bathos.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 15, 2006 03:44 PM (NBy2A)
21
The pullation of small businesses under Clinton's watch?
Might that have something to do with the 1997 tax cut he signed into law. One of the provisions was a cut in personal capital gains - something that was be useful for investors in both small and large businesses.
Wait though, was it a Democratic Congress that gave him that? No, it was a Republican one. The Democratic Congress was the one that gave us a tax hike in 1993.
Also, during the Clinton Administration the Republicans allowed for regulations to be cut. If you read George Stephanopolis' book, you'll find that the Left (including George) was against much of the deregulation that happened in the 90s. A Democratic Congress was not about to let the bureaucracy that was built over their decades of rule be messed with.
Finally, if there were increased regulations added without Congressional approval, they were done in a way to make a political problem for the following adminstration. Take for instance, the new
Mercury rules. The Clinton Administration supposedly enacted these rules; but they weren't finished or announced until after the 2000 election - yet before Bush's inauguration. This way, any changes to make the new rule, oh, technically feasible would be the Bush Administration's problem. If he messed with these "rules of the Clinton Adminsitration", he could be considered hostile to the environment; but if he didn't, businesses would suffer. Nevermind that it hasn't been until the Bush Adminstration that Mercury emissions have been regulated at all. That isn't an "isolated example". A diesel engine put in an American truck was no cleaner January 19, 2001 than it was in 1993. Why is this? Because Bill Clinton didn't want to upset Detroit (more the unions than business). However, new particulate rules put forward during the Bush administration put our diesel engines close to that of the remainder of the Western World.
I'll "C" my way out of the "A & B" conversation; but I thought it could use a few facts.
Enjoy!
Might that have something to do with the 1997 tax cut he signed into law. One of the provisions was a cut in personal capital gains - something that was be useful for investors in both small and large businesses.
Wait though, was it a Democratic Congress that gave him that? No, it was a Republican one. The Democratic Congress was the one that gave us a tax hike in 1993.
Also, during the Clinton Administration the Republicans allowed for regulations to be cut. If you read George Stephanopolis' book, you'll find that the Left (including George) was against much of the deregulation that happened in the 90s. A Democratic Congress was not about to let the bureaucracy that was built over their decades of rule be messed with.
Finally, if there were increased regulations added without Congressional approval, they were done in a way to make a political problem for the following adminstration. Take for instance, the new
Mercury rules. The Clinton Administration supposedly enacted these rules; but they weren't finished or announced until after the 2000 election - yet before Bush's inauguration. This way, any changes to make the new rule, oh, technically feasible would be the Bush Administration's problem. If he messed with these "rules of the Clinton Adminsitration", he could be considered hostile to the environment; but if he didn't, businesses would suffer. Nevermind that it hasn't been until the Bush Adminstration that Mercury emissions have been regulated at all. That isn't an "isolated example". A diesel engine put in an American truck was no cleaner January 19, 2001 than it was in 1993. Why is this? Because Bill Clinton didn't want to upset Detroit (more the unions than business). However, new particulate rules put forward during the Bush administration put our diesel engines close to that of the remainder of the Western World.
I'll "C" my way out of the "A & B" conversation; but I thought it could use a few facts.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 04:49 PM (XK1Nc)
22
I forgot that I can't work HTML into my comments. Here are the references:
1997 Tax Cut: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Mercury Regulations: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032904.html
1997 Tax Cut: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Mercury Regulations: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032904.html
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 05:00 PM (XK1Nc)
23
That's right -- when Bush cut taxes, it was only the rich who got a break -- of course it was only the rich who PAID damn taxes!
It's kind of hard to give a tax break to people who don't PAY taxes, isn't it? But I suppose that doesn't matter to Democrats -- Democrats can only talk without showing any results or anything concrete.
It's kind of hard to give a tax break to people who don't PAY taxes, isn't it? But I suppose that doesn't matter to Democrats -- Democrats can only talk without showing any results or anything concrete.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:33 PM (+Gl1m)
24
Where is the pullulation of small business under Bush? Republicans are now running every branch of government. You'd think things would be utopian, listening to you guys. But things are pretty stagnant. And although the DOW inches up now and then, it always seems to slide back down. And even on the up days, more and more companies are breeching their contracts and rendering pensions obsolete.
Anything to make the books APPEAR happy. Enron all over again.
Here's a simple task. List the 5 positive changes the Bush Administration hath brung.
Face it. Bush and Co. are MEDIOCRE. Bush thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job. But Brownie was just as mediocre as the rest of the team.
>
Show me the results or anything concrete that Bush has brought to the table. Democrats are not in power. Clinton left America financially strong. Bush and Co. have been stealing it ever since. And now they are getting caught. I hope they all fucking rot in Hell for all their murdering and destruction...and glaring incompetence.
Anything to make the books APPEAR happy. Enron all over again.
Here's a simple task. List the 5 positive changes the Bush Administration hath brung.
Face it. Bush and Co. are MEDIOCRE. Bush thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job. But Brownie was just as mediocre as the rest of the team.
>
Show me the results or anything concrete that Bush has brought to the table. Democrats are not in power. Clinton left America financially strong. Bush and Co. have been stealing it ever since. And now they are getting caught. I hope they all fucking rot in Hell for all their murdering and destruction...and glaring incompetence.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 16, 2006 11:36 AM (dre4x)
25
Ok, we're wandering far off track here.
The point of this post is that the Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact, whether you want to admit it or not. This moronic law only serves to punish WalMart for doing well. It can only result in bad things for everyone concerned -- WalMart can raise it's prices, or it can stop doing business in MD. Neither is a good result, and Democrats are the ones who passed the stupid law.
The point of this post is that the Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact, whether you want to admit it or not. This moronic law only serves to punish WalMart for doing well. It can only result in bad things for everyone concerned -- WalMart can raise it's prices, or it can stop doing business in MD. Neither is a good result, and Democrats are the ones who passed the stupid law.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 11:46 AM (/k+l4)
26
I'm sorry, but "Democrats want to PUNISH those who succeed. They do. That's a verifiable fact" is just silly. If everyone that works for Wal-Mart has good, appropriate health care...the success can be counted in the millions of people...or however many people are employed by them. Success is way more than just the executive bottom line.
Good information is a major key to success, correct? Well, look at who frees up the information, and who hides and distorts it.
Clinton and the Democrats worked tirelessly to bring information of everyone, by focusing on the spreading of the Internet.
Bush has done nothing to add to this. In fact he has subtracted from it. Secret meetings, wiretapping, on and on.
The only good success is based on good information. Not opinion. Not misinformation. Not wishful thinking. Not secrecy.
Democrats want everyone to succeed, so long as success does not mean diminishing success for another. Good air, good water, good land and good works are as important as good information, and Democrats are the protectors and stewards of all of these important aspects of success and life.
Republicans are mired in Maya.
Good information is a major key to success, correct? Well, look at who frees up the information, and who hides and distorts it.
Clinton and the Democrats worked tirelessly to bring information of everyone, by focusing on the spreading of the Internet.
Bush has done nothing to add to this. In fact he has subtracted from it. Secret meetings, wiretapping, on and on.
The only good success is based on good information. Not opinion. Not misinformation. Not wishful thinking. Not secrecy.
Democrats want everyone to succeed, so long as success does not mean diminishing success for another. Good air, good water, good land and good works are as important as good information, and Democrats are the protectors and stewards of all of these important aspects of success and life.
Republicans are mired in Maya.
Posted by: anonyMoses at January 16, 2006 03:54 PM (dre4x)
27
How does everyone succeed if some people are forced to pay for other people?
If WalMart has to raise their prices by 8% to pay for the new healthcare, everyone who shops at WalMart has to pay more and WalMart will have to lay off 8% of their employees. So no one will benefit! Even those who get health care will end up having to pay higher prices at WalMart for their own goods!
From what I see of Democrat's actions, they want some to succeed, but only at the expense of another.
If they want everyone to succeed, they should get the heck out of the way and let the free market work. In the free market, when one succeeds, everyone does. In the government market, one can only progress by reducing someone else.
For example, when a new innovation is developed that makes plastic cheaper, everyone benefits from the lower price of plastic. But when government decides that plastic should be cheaper, it interferes with the free market and actually makes plastic scarce -- which punishes everyone.
If there were people with leadership at WalMart, they'd do what I suggested and show the Democrats in MD how wrong they are.
If WalMart has to raise their prices by 8% to pay for the new healthcare, everyone who shops at WalMart has to pay more and WalMart will have to lay off 8% of their employees. So no one will benefit! Even those who get health care will end up having to pay higher prices at WalMart for their own goods!
From what I see of Democrat's actions, they want some to succeed, but only at the expense of another.
If they want everyone to succeed, they should get the heck out of the way and let the free market work. In the free market, when one succeeds, everyone does. In the government market, one can only progress by reducing someone else.
For example, when a new innovation is developed that makes plastic cheaper, everyone benefits from the lower price of plastic. But when government decides that plastic should be cheaper, it interferes with the free market and actually makes plastic scarce -- which punishes everyone.
If there were people with leadership at WalMart, they'd do what I suggested and show the Democrats in MD how wrong they are.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (/k+l4)
28
a bit late in this respose but....
Anonomouse, when government mandates (regulates through legal channels) that a business spend it's money a certain way, (i.e. healthcare) that is called "FASCISM".....look it up.
So now, with all of the morons on teh left screaming that Bush is a fascist, don't you find it ironic in the least, and hyposcritical in the highest form that it is DEMOCRATS that are enacting FASCIST POLICIES????
You guys are perhaps the most retarded creatures that have ever retained the ability to vote. Go wring out your drool bib and have your mommy get your juice and tell you a story.
Anonomouse, when government mandates (regulates through legal channels) that a business spend it's money a certain way, (i.e. healthcare) that is called "FASCISM".....look it up.
So now, with all of the morons on teh left screaming that Bush is a fascist, don't you find it ironic in the least, and hyposcritical in the highest form that it is DEMOCRATS that are enacting FASCIST POLICIES????
You guys are perhaps the most retarded creatures that have ever retained the ability to vote. Go wring out your drool bib and have your mommy get your juice and tell you a story.
Posted by: kender at January 18, 2006 12:17 AM (8iNM6)
29
Drool bibs...LOL!
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:28 AM (+Gl1m)
30
Sorry. I thought I was talking with adults here. I guess I was wrong. Being in my 50s, I find talk of drool bibs and mommies to be, well, ironic. Especially coming from a child.
And a turd-obsessed child at that.
At least the host has his wits about him, which is why I enjoy talking with him...
But first, here are 14 characteristics of fascism:
-Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
-Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
-Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
-Supremacy of the Military
-Rampant Sexism
-Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with National Security
-Religion and Government are Intertwined
-Corporate Power is Protected (Wal-Mart)
-Labor Power is Suppressed
-Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
-Obsession with Crime and Punishment
-Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
-Fraudulent Elections
In other words...BushWorld.
So, Kender...how does it feel to be a fascist?
And a turd-obsessed child at that.
At least the host has his wits about him, which is why I enjoy talking with him...
But first, here are 14 characteristics of fascism:
-Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
-Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
-Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
-Supremacy of the Military
-Rampant Sexism
-Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with National Security
-Religion and Government are Intertwined
-Corporate Power is Protected (Wal-Mart)
-Labor Power is Suppressed
-Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
-Obsession with Crime and Punishment
-Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
-Fraudulent Elections
In other words...BushWorld.
So, Kender...how does it feel to be a fascist?
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:05 PM (J5SQf)
31
Mr. Ogre -- You want the free market to work? Without check?
Well...work to end corporate welfare. That will take care of the biggest chunk.
Back to Wal-Mart...
I don't hate Wal-Mart. I think it presents a challenge to small business. And if the small, mom and pops can't rise to the challenge, perhaps they deserve to fail. Fuck em!
McDonalds has raised the standard for smaller burger stands in speed, quality, cleanliness. We no longer accept fillthy bathrooms and long waits.
The mom and pop store needs to do something different and better. Better coffee, better music, candlelight, free shoeshines...whatever. If they sit on their asses and complain...let them fail.
Dinosaurs have weaknesses that small businesses can and should exploit. By doing so, everyone benefits. Wal-Marts get to stay in business, catering to low-quality folk, of which there are plenty. And smaller store can cater to quality folk...who often have more money.
I don't envy Wal-Mart. I see them as a necessary catalyst for change.
Well...work to end corporate welfare. That will take care of the biggest chunk.
Back to Wal-Mart...
I don't hate Wal-Mart. I think it presents a challenge to small business. And if the small, mom and pops can't rise to the challenge, perhaps they deserve to fail. Fuck em!
McDonalds has raised the standard for smaller burger stands in speed, quality, cleanliness. We no longer accept fillthy bathrooms and long waits.
The mom and pop store needs to do something different and better. Better coffee, better music, candlelight, free shoeshines...whatever. If they sit on their asses and complain...let them fail.
Dinosaurs have weaknesses that small businesses can and should exploit. By doing so, everyone benefits. Wal-Marts get to stay in business, catering to low-quality folk, of which there are plenty. And smaller store can cater to quality folk...who often have more money.
I don't envy Wal-Mart. I see them as a necessary catalyst for change.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 18, 2006 02:16 PM (J5SQf)
32
I am with you absolutely 100% on ending corporate welfare. EVERY time I see government giving money to companies, I always point it out and complain -- that is wrong, wrong, wrong (which is why I identify myself as a conservative and not a Republican).
And with WalMart, if they're doing something wrong, make them stop. But earning money isn't wrong, so punishing them for earning money IS.
And with WalMart, if they're doing something wrong, make them stop. But earning money isn't wrong, so punishing them for earning money IS.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 02:28 PM (/k+l4)
33
When Big Box developers like Wal-Mart move into a town, buy off the town council, put mom-and-pop out of business, don't sell domestic goods, create traffic snarls, discriminate against homosexuals and liberals, etc. I hate them.
The free market tells me that there's nothing I can do about it except decline to shop there. I decline to shop there.
There's a Wal-Mart going in on the west side of my town. 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved to make room for it. The area is being rezoned to make room for it. The nearby hamlet of Candler's small businesses are doomed. I'm celebrating this why? Because the free market's so darned awesome?
4 years ago Wal-mart wanted to put a Supercenter on the site of an old bleachery on a river here in my town. The town rose up, and the city council denied the corporation's wishes for land variances. Then, when the furor passed, the council reexamined it, passed it, and the Wal-Mart went in, violating innumberable enviornmental restrictions and city mandates. Now the traffic is so snarled that the nearby residents who led the campaign against the place are choosing to move away rather than have their quality of life diminished by the hordes who thoughtlessly choose this store over the local businesses that would actually use their profits in our town.
Why do I hate Wal-Mart, let me count the ways...
The free market tells me that there's nothing I can do about it except decline to shop there. I decline to shop there.
There's a Wal-Mart going in on the west side of my town. 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved to make room for it. The area is being rezoned to make room for it. The nearby hamlet of Candler's small businesses are doomed. I'm celebrating this why? Because the free market's so darned awesome?
4 years ago Wal-mart wanted to put a Supercenter on the site of an old bleachery on a river here in my town. The town rose up, and the city council denied the corporation's wishes for land variances. Then, when the furor passed, the council reexamined it, passed it, and the Wal-Mart went in, violating innumberable enviornmental restrictions and city mandates. Now the traffic is so snarled that the nearby residents who led the campaign against the place are choosing to move away rather than have their quality of life diminished by the hordes who thoughtlessly choose this store over the local businesses that would actually use their profits in our town.
Why do I hate Wal-Mart, let me count the ways...
Posted by: Screwy Hoolie at January 19, 2006 09:43 PM (Xsox3)
34
Don't confuse the free market with socialism! If 57 homeowners are being forcibly moved, that is NOT the free market, that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If government officials are being bought off, that's NOT the free market, that's corruption. If WalMart is violating city mandates and regulations, that's criminal or civil violations, and NOT a free market.
If WalMart does enough damage, people will stop going there. Right now, they provide the lowest prices and tons of jobs, so the majority likes them.
I'm not supporting ANYTHING illegal that they do -- if they break the law, I'll be the first to ask them to be punished. I strongly oppose them when the city tries to use zoning and "condemnation" to put them in place -- it's wrong, no matter what the reason.
If WalMart does enough damage, people will stop going there. Right now, they provide the lowest prices and tons of jobs, so the majority likes them.
I'm not supporting ANYTHING illegal that they do -- if they break the law, I'll be the first to ask them to be punished. I strongly oppose them when the city tries to use zoning and "condemnation" to put them in place -- it's wrong, no matter what the reason.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 09:48 PM (+Gl1m)
35
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I haven't been up to anything recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
Posted by: Kaka55164 at July 19, 2006 08:26 PM (vR5/R)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0264 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0202 seconds, 43 records returned.
Page size 33 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.