Well that trollghetti certainly was not al dente. Maybe you should chuck some more and see what sticks.
If you're going to troll then you might as well be good at it, so here's a tip: learn your audience.
Does anyone think Americans will wake up and vote for Ron Paul?
- Thread starter TheSilencer1313
- Start date
Well that trollghetti certainly was not al dente. Maybe you should chuck some more and see what sticks.
If you're going to troll then you might as well be good at it, so here's a tip: learn your audience.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
Sorry you are probably 10 years old and unemployed. I'm not trolling that is everyone's excuse when they automatically want to win an argument. I'm just saying get off of your pedestal because unless you don't ever in your life take any type of government help the get the #%$^ out. I'm so fed up with all these people on food stamps or one step above unemployment acting like others don't deserve the help. NO one owes me anything and don't worry your little head; things are not going to get better there are too many @%#holy individuals that run around this country sabotaging those who are struggling because TAXES are oppressive. Well, you know what would be more oppressive if you had your house catch on fire or someone steal your car and you had to pay for those services. YES, that is right the government provides your fire department and police department's salary. Through...TAXES. God bless the rich they have a whole party fighting so they can not pay a dime more than those tightwads feel is necessary.
I never claimed anyone "owed" me a job, and frankly, if your reading comprehension ability was higher than that of a dung beetle you might have grasped that. What happened is I got hired by the company (I didn't go out and put a gun to their head and forced them to hire me, they actually were looking for employers and felt that I was qualified enough to do the job), I did the job extremely well, and then my company renegotiated our contract with a large insurance company so that more of the work could be done offshore. Previously, the contract required that 10% of the work be done in country, but someone figured out that if we moved the rest of that 10% to India then our CEO and the rest of the pole smokers in upper management could make more money, while a couple of hundred people lose their jobs.
So if my company wants to lay people off to give workers in India lower wages so the jackass CEO can make more money, then his company can foot a larger portion of the unemployment bill with it...the bill they pay taxes on in the first place. If they don't want to foot that portion of the unemployment bill, they can actually keep the people they hired, which is a novel concept for scumbag CEOs who only care about the bottom line and lining their own wallets.
We do the work much better than people in India. They are the most error prone illiterates I've ever seen in my life, and frankly don't grasp the English language enough to do the job with any sort of quality whatsoever. But they will do the work for 95% less of the cost, so my company doesn't care about quality, they care about cost. Fair enough I guess, but they shouldn't be able to fire people with impunity without any sort of cost associated with it.
Last edited:
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
Some people who are fortunate enough to make it think that they are special and everyone who doesn't make it deserves being poor.
I have done real estate developments in the Bahamas and Aruba. It is a complete nightmare. When you hire someone there, the nation has a law that I translate to read, "you pay them for eternity." It is almost impossible to fire someone, for any reason whatsoever, and the gov't shuts down your entire operations for a labor dispute. OT, I know, but I like America's more free market employment/opportunity approach.
I'm fine with a free market approach. What I don't like is a "we will eliminate your job because someone in India can do it worse but for 95% cheaper" approach. And honestly even I don't think that should be illegal. However, that doesn't mean they should get out of their unemployment compensation because they enjoy that philosophy.
But using a free market approach to your problem would be to not develop real estate in the Bahamas or Aruba.
But using a free market approach to your problem would be to not develop real estate in the Bahamas or Aruba.
And that worked. I was one and done in both locales. In your example though, it's a damn shame Americans don't DEMAND quality anymore. Our downward spiral related to anything that is substance is appalling.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
My biggest problem is lobbyist. Why are companies able to buy politicians? It is legal. The BEST investment for a company is to get a lobbyist. Pizza companies made it so that frozen pizza is considered a vegetable to sell in schools (because of the tomato sauce). For example SOPA might get passed and that has the possibility of closing down websites like this in favor of one that is supported by the official Jazz website. Politicians serve corporations.
Simplicity has its appeal I suppose, right down there next to abject absolute ignorance. Politicians earn their living dealing in it. And some very sophisticated high-stakes players pay them to do it.
Socialism has been sold to the common folk as the pretext for sequestering the land and resources out of their use, limiting and regulating the use of what is in private hands for the benefit of cartelists "too big to fail" who do in fact pay "our" elected representatives to support their interests with reams of legislation and hordes of government agents who will enforce their monopolies. On the bottom-feeder side of the equation, we've created an indigent class of government relief-dependent voters who can be counted on to vote for their dole. The cartelists/socialists need these voters to keep their racket in power.
An example of this cartel interest is Bill Clinton in the Grand Staircase "national monument". A large Dutch resource company had claimed large areas of one of the best coal deposits in the country. Bill Clinton spent a week at the Rockefeller spread in Jackson Hole, and then flew down to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Federal National Parks rangers had cleared a number of old-growth tall pines to create the perfect TV production spot for the ten minute shoot of Bill Clinton waving his hands across the Grand Canyon while announcing the new National Monument oh a hundred miles off in the distance.
I spoke to some national-level acquaintances who supported this land grab/sequestration, and stated that it would not actually stop development of the coal some day. They were unconcerned. "I don't care, so long as it's not in my lifetime" was the response of one elderly "mover and shaker" from the receding generation. "We can't let them (the Dutch) have that coal!" was the reply of another. When it is developed, it will be by the Rockefellers' interests, that's all. The Rockefellers, who have long seen the fundamental market problem they face as "too much oil/resources" have acted to create shortages by taking out the competition, limiting exploration, and in many other ways jacking up the price of what they control. Their chief enforcer for their rackets is our government.
Without much press, since then, most of Nevada has been re-mapped into a hundred "wilderness areas". It's a world-wide trend. A recent look at the maps of Australia or Brazil. . .will show the same sequestration. Strange isn't it, that this worldwide movement is supported by the largest mining, lumber, meat, grain ,dairy, oil, and pharmaceutical cartels, and the environmental organizations they finance and run. Like the "illegal" drug segment, which uses the DEA like a personal enforcer of their cartel on the street, all of these "interests" have a sort of legacy that can be traced back in American history to the tories who thrived off British government connections prior to the American Revolution. Bush family ancestors were running opium into China alongside the British before the War for Independence, and to the limit of their power have brought the United States back into the same sphere of influence we were in when we were a colony under abject dominion of the corporate interests.
The "green revolution" has been a front for the corporate project of creating ideal markets for their game of Monopoly. While their own corporate franchises have always been, and still are, irresponsible polluters creating the perfect public outcries for action that the bought and paid for politicians can use as reasons for more monopoly-friendly regulations.
"Too big to fail" is the same as "Too big to actually regulate", and as "Too big to prosecute", or "Too big to vote out".
The mainstream press is owned by, and financially dependent on, the same interests. Expect the worst for anyone like Ron Paul who believes government needs to be limited in its scope and powers precisely because unless it is, it will be bought and run by corporate interests.
I never said I was against unemployment insurance. You didn't have to slur Indians to get that point across.
I make a conscious effort to buy American not over the myth of bringing jobs back home but because I appreciate quality stuff. I was shopping for a new porcelain throne a while back and everything was "made in China" except Kohler. I fiddled with some of the foreign stuff and it's the same old junk. I spent double for the Kohler seat and can't be happier I did. The swap took an entire 5 minutes where the alternatives would have been a couple hours assembling first. There are some really cool things about the design like no bolts through the tank to secure it to the bowl. Why would you purposely put holes in a water tank? The Chinese do and many Americans like the cheaper price.
I "created" American jobs buying that toilet, but I also "destroyed" American jobs at the same time because I had $150 less to spend elsewhere.
Every problem we have starts with We The People. Americans have special interests they believe are so important that they should be forced upon everyone else. That's where lobbyists step in. Take the extreme greenies for example. They want irrational regulations put in place and lobbyists for large engine manufacturers are more than happy to buy off politicians and their constituencies in exchange for tighter regulations that hurt their competitors.
The bottom line is if you really don't want lobbyists then stop with the special interests.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
And this is directly the problem with free trade.
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
and capitalism "free market approach" you still need to make your good the cheapest you can to sell them at the most profit you can. So why not send jobs overseas. Tax and regulate the hell out of those goods that companies don't produce on our soil. That is the brilliance of regulation you can get companies to cooperate or they lose market share or privileges.
The way I heard it, Ron Paul was in the airforce as a flight surgeon or something. . . . He's seen some of the world out there, and simply shares the perspective of our founding fathers about getting drawn in with foreign intrigue and wasting the lives of our citizens on useless foreign wars.
It's pretty dicey playing world policeman as things are "out there". Particularly when our foreign policy/State Department/Intelligence Agenicies are full of stupidity. We don't even know why we fight wars anymore. To me, it's not insanity when you realize that, to decide we really shouldn't be out there doing that.
Going forward with wars of aggression against people we once supported and armed, like Saddam's Iraq and Afghanistan's Taliban, really looks to me like we've lost our bearings. We can't afford to go on doing this. If anyone doesn't see that, I'd make the case they've got their heads in the sand, or somewhere equally unaware of the facts of our circumstances.
I never supported the way things have been done before. But letting Iran get a nuclear bomb? Insane. Isolationism may have been viable back in the time of the founding fathers. It is no longer viable, the world has "shrunk" so to speak. Everything is to interconnected becuase of technology.
I don't care who has a nuclear bomb. Couldn't be worse for the world than "us" having it when the power in the USA is actually out of "our" hands and in the hands of a certifiable insane puppet/clique for banking/militarist interests like Obama and his advisors are.
Mutally-assured total destruction "defense" ideas are insane. I suppose we need whatever anyone else has, or the ability to render them ineffective at a high safety margin of error/malfunction redundancy.
Of course eveb if we had some kind of dreamy world of friendly neighbors, we would still need nuclear power plants, engineered to several levels of safety more than the earlier plants were built to. What does it cost to have a reservoir of coolant sufficient to absorb the heat in the case of a failure of other controls, connected by some redundant gravity-competent pipes so if the controls go dead, the coolant will go in. It's called a negative "on" valve that is only closed when there is postive control of the positive, the passive state would just be open.
I've seen some pretty credible scientific opinion, for former officials of the nuclear regulatory agencies, holding that Iran is actually a long ways from the bomb, and the current activity is only consistent with nuclear power purposes. I also have several friends who are natives of Iran, and generally opposed to the religious dictatorship, who say there is huge support for regime change in Iran. My contacts with Iran go back over forty years, and it is my opinion that Iran would actually be our best "ally" in the region if it was a democracy instead of a police/religious caste state.
What is insane is all this war mongering our press is feeding us.
Our founding fathers had a great idea for American foreign policy. They wisely understood that a constitutional republic like ours required competent support from the people on the ground in other countries, who understood that they could be free as soon as they wanted it. Trying to export our ideals by force of arms is actually inconsistent and incompatible with American principles of government.
In regard for foreign alliances, they had seen Europeans wage endless wars against one other, confounded by international intrigues and alliances, and clearly understood that that is no way to do international relations. I think the concise version of it was :
"Alliance with none, Commerce with all." And limited government financed by reasonable tariffs. And a "military" that was not so much a standing army, but a well-armed and loyal free people willing to fight whenever necessary for their country. That's what the "militia" was defined as.
Last edited: