Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"96113)</div>

In the 1920's, Henry Ford revamped his auto plant by creating the assembly line. When he re-opened, he immediately gave everyone a raise 500% raise. Thats right, 500%.
He said at the time that if I want the people to buy my cars, they have to afford them. This was the start of a whole new economic model. It was the opposite of supply side economics which had been the predominant model for hundreds of years.

And not only could those employees afford to buy cars, but over time, they could afford to buy homes, and more importantly, send their kids to college. It was the start of something new, and it was the start of the explosion in progress that was the American 20th century.

And it was NOT supply side economics. Over time, the snowball continued to grow and grow. All the other factors I mentioned above, as well as many others, all worked to empower regular people. Central to that was the weakening of the corporations, and the weakening of the rights of all "Owners".

But I guess the 20th century was a mistake, how else can we explain the willingness of Americans to vote in those that want to bring us back to the way it was in the 19th century.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"96078)</div>

Did you see the movie "The Corporation"? It just came out of DVD.

I would recomend that everyone rent it.

 

I really didn't want to do this but I did check out a few things.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

It is widely suggested that when Spain pulled out of Iraq after the Madrid bombing that is was an example of appeasement.

What the RWM does not want you to know is what happened after Spain pulled those troops out of Iraq. Spain sent a larger contingent of troops to Aphganistan then they took out of Iraq.

You see, Spain wasn't giving up on the war on terrorism, they were only giving up on GW's LEADERSHIP of that war on terrorism. They realized that the war in Iraq had very close to zero to do with the war on terror, so they left.

But you won't get this view from American media. It doesn't fit in with their agenda.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

I did an internet search on this one and did find that same sex marriages did indeed cause skyrocketing illegitamacy in Scandinavia. However, the source was Bill OReilly. Upon investigation I found out that there was another story that was actually based in facts. First off, same sex marriage is not legal in scandinavia. They do have civil unions.

And there is zero evidence that these civil unions have anything to do with a small increase in children raised out of wedlock.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

There is major difference between the "liberalization of a policy" and what it is to be a "liberal" in the USA. I do trust that you understand this and that this is not a deliberate obfuscation.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

This is the first time I've heard this theory. Everything else I've read was that it was about concerns over soveriegnty and or part of domestic policy and had nothing to do with economic policies, nor anything to do with "liberalism". Did you get this from Faux News?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

You are right, and it's due to the empowerment of the common man -- not thanks to some wonderful paternal corporation.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96088)</div>

Growth of profits is not the same as the "thriving" of a nation. And I'm not sure that the philosophy of conservatism is relevant. I look at results, not philosophies, and I don't like what I see.

 

Michael: Agree with the manipulation thing, although as Prius04 stated and I sort of repeated, the direction of the conservative agenda on many issues is very troublesome to me. I aplaud an evangelical who thinks through the death penalty issue as you have.
When you consider who is manipulating more, I think you have to look at the success of the conservatives in recent years. Good will out, no matter what. I don't think it is "natural" as you implied to manipulate. We are taught that behavior. Basically, I believe we all respond to good instinctively, and manipulation is evil. True, some manipulate without having a clue that they are doing so. They are mesmerized into believing that that is the modus operandi.

 

Prius04: I agree with Emilyjohn, I sure would love to have you on my debate team!

 

Thank you, but I would prefer that my country gets back on the right track than to "win" debates.

And there will be a point when it will be too late. The "Corporatists" will have so drained the resources, both environmental and human, of this nation that by the time people wake up to what they have done that we will be bypassed.

Bypassed by another country, or set of countries, that learn to empower their masses like we used to do.

 

Prius04, good grief, what are these stories you find that are based on "fact", that coincidentally supported your left leanings or anything you agree with. Every time I post something, you go into Google and see if you can verify or contradict, depending upon whether you agree or disagree. You know you'll find whatever you're looking for if you look hard enough; and, since you're not really sure about what you or I are talking about, how are you able to judge fact from fiction? How many people do you know have been "victimized" by "corporatists"? I doubt that you know many, because the vast majority, after they've been down for whatever reason, are in a country where there are the resources to pick themselves up and get right back into the fight. So, Prius04, I know you won't take my advice; but here it is anyway: just stop your infernal whining, make the best of the wonderful nation you're a part of; and, for heaven's sake, don't take yourself so seriously, because your ideas WON'T CHANGE ANYONE; you're only going to alienate people. THE END

 

Examples of victims of Corporatism? I know a man who was at one time making six figures and had to sell every thing he had and he still couldn't send his kids to college. I know a woman who could not take a job making over $8 an hour because she would loose medicare for her two children, one of whom had a life threatening disease and the other one who had health problems as well. I have worked with hundreds of people whose lives have been ravaged by Corporatism. We have the largest disparity ever between those who have and those who are so deprived they are never going to be on an equal playing field. How would you like to be the victim of decisions to merge, that according to *management itself, need not take place and lose the following: Your home which to replace in areas where jobs exist would cost you 10 times as much. Your family that has been together for 6 generations but cannot absorb the extreme economic hits to stay together. You are right, figures can be manipulated. But these people's lives are down the tube and I knew them. I don't call it whining to make an impassioned plea for serious reconsideration of attitudes and policies that are apparently oblivious to human need. Healthcare is a right. I know you'll never agree with that because you consider the rest of the civilized world who has it to be examples of societies that have lost it all.

*Not the high up golden parachuters. I also know those on the other end who hire lawyers that net them, individually, 8 million dollars each on a barely legal merger.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"96500)</div>

Emilyjohn -
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between you doing internet research and someone else doing it? You seem to be frustrated that someone is actually doing research and calling you on your talking points.

Here is a variation of the tactic mentioned a few pages back. Where did this 'fact' come from that Prius04 isn't sure about what he himself is talking about? It appears that it has suddenly materialized whole cloth in order to support a claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I have a feeling that all of the small business owners across the country who have had their businesses destroyed by Wal-Marts coming into their communities believe that they have been "victimized" by "corporatists".

I'll also bet that you feel that an ever increasing GDP is an absolute indicator of a healthy economy. This does seem to be the prevalent attitude of those who believe that the theory of tinkle-down economics works. The question really is this: does a 'healthy economy' (by GDP standards) equate with a healthy 'quality of life' for the individual?

Now that's constructive, instead of replying to the very valid points raised (which rebutted your misinformation) you attack him as a "whiner".

You then proceed to figuratively stick your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaim that no one can change your mind, it's already full of the truth.

What if the Founding Fathers of this country had also held that attitude? Because I would like to think that even though they most probably did 'alienate people'; they most certainly changed the course of the entire world.

From my vantage point, Prius04 is making the best of this wonderful nation - he's acknowledging that some things in our country are broken, and doing what he can to fix them - including honest debate on the internet. If even one persons mind is opened to new possibilities by this discussion, then it seems as if the energy expended was worthwhile.

 

Thank you Fred and Grey,

Wow, I had read EJ's post at work and decided that I was no longer going to respond. When I got home there were two wonderful posts that called him on his attempts to obfuscate.

When I search the internet for information, I don't start with conclusions. I truly am interested in facts. When EJ mentioned how gay marriage was causing skyrocketing illegitimacy rates in Scandinavian countries, I thought this is fascinating. All the research I had read was that no such conclusion had been drawn -- not to mention it simply defies logic.

So I did a search using EJ's t wording and lo and behold, I found a few sites lauding Bill OReilly of Faux News. And he apparently said something to that affect quoting some other site.

So I dug deeper. What I wanted was a few Danish or Swedish government sites – in English, that might be helpful. I was not in luck but I did find a number of Blogs that talked about Bill’s preposterous notion on this. And those blogs were filled with Danish and Swedish and Finnish people serving up facts on this. And those facts talked about how horribly wrong Bill ORielly was.

I wonder why EJ failed to note the statistics in the USA? Currently, there is only one single disgusting perverted state that has such a horrible notion of marriage that it is the only state that has legalized gay marriage. Turns out, it’s also the state with the lowest divorce rate in the USA. It’s also 2nd or 3rd lowest illegitimacy rate state in the USA. (The worst states in each of those categories are quite red by the way.)

That’s right, the bastion of liberal decadence, Massachusetts has the lowest and among the lowest divorce and illegitimacy rates in the USA.

 

Prius04: Gay marriage is one of the issues I am somewhat conservative on, but that does not mean that things should be misrepresented. I have many reasons why I am opposed to gay marriages but not civil unions. I won't try to prove gay marriages are wrong with O'Reillyisms.

 

Fred,

I hear you. But I also think that gay marriage is a wedge issue to obfuscate some bigger and very powerful issues going on.

One of the reasons the conservative movement, and by that I mean the richer corporatists, can embrace issues like being anti gay marriage is because gay marriage doesn't apply to them. Rich gay Republicans that want to remain in a committed relationship can have expensive lawyers draw up all the necessary contracts so that for all intents and purposes, they are married.

But they can then go spout a homophobic agenda because it gets votes, without worrying about inheritance rights or child custody issues or whether they will be able to visit their loved one in an ICU. They can just buy the hospital. (LOL)

In fact, I would contend that rich conservative leaders, as opposed to those who are duped by them, really could care less about gun control, the death penalty, abortion, prayer in schools etc etc etc. Those issues don't apply to them. They have body guards or live in gated communities, the legal system that the rich have access to is different from the one you and I have access to, and they can just fly to Europe for their abortions, and send their kids to private schools.

So they can pretend to embrace those issues because it doens't matter to many of them how they turn out.

And by the way, I'm confused about with gay marriage too, although I've now got 3 gay friends who have tied the knot, and 2 close relatives that are in loving relationships. In any case, isn't it hard to argue against committment in a relationship?

(I work in that decadent state of Mass.)

 

Prius04, please don't accuse me of "obfuscations." Same sex marriages are legal in Finland, Holland, Norway, and Sweden. And when you add the wide acceptance of common law marriages in those cultures, it just aggravates the problems. The Dutch have had it. They're moving out of Holland; they're voting with their feet. And then you can't present facts, so you call people names and accuse them of being dishonest. The EU constitution IS a liberal document. Our constitution required 1 page. The EU constitution is 100's of pages long and seeks to name everything from cradle to grave under its jurisdiction. It's not theory, Prius04, it's fact; and that is why it's being rejected by the voters. They're fed up, and they want to change the direction in which Europe has been tailspinning for the last 40 years.

 

EJ, Those countries may have gay marriage now, I don't have time to look. But your comment above was that over the decades that they have had gay marriage, the illigitamacy rate skyrocketed.

The gay marriage movement in Europe is new, not decades old. So your contention is wrong.

And its the Declaration of Independence that is one page, our constitution is about 6 or 7, plus Amendments.

And unless you have poll data on the reasons that the French and Dutch voted against it I beg your forgiveness if I do not embrace your conclusions. I read constantly, including European Web sites, and from what I can see, they were afraid that there might be an END to Liberalism, and THAT contributed to why the negative vote. Plus, the French vote had a lot to do with internal politics. But I'm sure its quite complicated.

Did I call you a name? I'm sorry. But accusing you of obfuscations is an accusation of what you do, not who you are. Those are very different. I apologize if you feel vilified. I think you are wrong, not evil. I also think you have been duped, but not that you are a dupe.

And from what I see, Europe has been thriving. The Economist Magazine polled thousands of world citizens as to where was the best place to live in the world. the top 5 of those places were in Europe. The top USA entry was about 17th.

 

Fred and Grey,

I more or less invented the term “corporatist†as I wanted to talk about what I see as happening in the world, and that term seemed to gel for me. The fact that you seemed to understand completely what it was I was trying to convey is very gratifying.

One term that I couldn’t use is “conservative†because EJ is absolutely correct. I don’t know what “common†people who are conservatives really want, so I can’t speak for that want.

On the other hand, although I don’t know what conservatives who are “common†people “wantâ€, I do know what they are getting. I can see that in the news every day. What they are getting is screwed.

By common people I mean people who earn wages as opposed to take profits, and those that are not in the top incomes. Many think that conservatives in Washington are tax cutters. This could not be further from the truth. Conservatives in Washington are tax shifters. Shifting the burden onto the working man. Of course, that is actually how it has always been, tax the working man. The only time in world history that the rich came even remotely close to having a tax burden that was remotely bothersome to them, like it has always been bothersome to working people, was from about 1920 till about 1980, peaking in 1960 when the top tax rate was 90%. Around 1980 is when the shift back to us began, and accelerated under GW.

And by the way, those years were also the years when the USA created a gigantic middle class.

Am I whining here?

 

I don't think you are whining but others may. I enjoy your clarity. I always tell my friends who are not wealthy that I have no qualms with my wealthy friends who are from the right, that makes perfect sense to me. My problem is with those who support the right causes and are not wealthy. They have been duped, mesmerized or whatever. I think the change started in the Reagan years, but now "corporates" have almost all the control. On the news tonight was a string about how the Republicans loosened rules on pension plans and now millions of Americans are paying for that while Congressional pensions for Democrats and Republicans have increased.

By the way, I wonder if other facts Emilyjohn refers to are as accurate as his reference to the US Constitution as being one page.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"96571)</div>

Thanks for you comments. Its easy to understand that so many have been duped and mesmerized. All through world history, governments existed to meet the needs of the rich elite. Then the 20th century happened in the USA. The rich did not lose power, but they were forced to share with the masses. And boy they did not like that one bit. So they funded dozens and then hundreds of organizations and they took over our media. Literaly billions of dollars have been spent to stop that sharing. Here is a list of some of the groups that have been funded by corporations. Later I'll try to find the links on all the groups that Exxon and Mobile and Texaco and other oil interests have funded for the sole purpose of disproving global warming. They start with a conclusion, then look for "facts" to prove it.

And don't forget the agenda news outlets: Washington Times, and Faux News.

Accuracy in Academia
Alliance Defense Fund
American Center for Law and Justice
American Conservative Union
American Enterprise Institute
American Family Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Life League
Americans for Tax Reform
Bradley Foundation, Lynde and Harry
Campaign for Working Families PAC
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Christian Coalition of America
Club for Growth
Collegiate Network
Concerned Women for America
Eagle Forum
Eagle Forum Collegians
Family Research Council
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Focus on the Family
FRCAction
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace
Independent Women's Forum
Institute for Justice
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Leadership Institute
Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Madison Project
National Association of Scholars
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Right to Life Committee
National Taxpayers Union
State Policy Network
Students for Academic Freedom
Traditional Values Coalition
Young America's Foundation

 

The American Constitution was finished in 1787.

11 years after the Declaration. (1776)

10 years after the Articles of Confederation were finished. (Completed 1777, Approved 1783) Those Articles later collapsed.

Back to the drawing board....
The American Constitution also was on it's way to rejection. In order to get the states to sign on, they were forced to add 10 Amendments to it. Amendments that guaranteed certain rights to the people.

In that context, the EU is years ahead of the USA was 200+ years ago.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Slightly delusional there? Did you also more or less help invent the internet too???<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"96558)</div>

WoW! You more or less invented a word and it is already in several dictionaries! :roll:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dic...er=score%2Cname
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...ratist&x=11&y=8
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corporatist

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"96578)</div>

Ya know, it would have been much easier just to post a link to the source of your impressive list of evil Right Wing Organizations.
Word for word, right down the list of all 40. . .

Accuracy in Academia
Alliance Defense Fund
American Center for Law and Justice . . .
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457

My problem is with those who support the liberal causes and are wealthy. They have been duping, mesmerizing or whatever.
Since you like lists . . . how about a list of some liberal groups:

A World of Women for World Peace
A.W.O.L. (TX)
Abolition 2000 New York (NY)
Academics For Justice
Action Center for Justice
Activist San Diego (CA)
Actnow4peace.org (NC)
Addicted to War (CA)
Advanced Institute (NJ)
Afghan Communicator (NY)
African Ancestral Lesbians United for Societal Change (NY)
African-American Women’s Clergy Association
Afrikan-American Institute for Policy Studies (SC)
AFSCME Local 2858 (IL)
Al-Awda, Palestine Right to Return Coalition - CT Chapter (CT)
Albany Department of Peace Meetup Group (NY)
All People's Congress (MD)
All Souls Church, Unitarian Universalist (DC)
Alliance for Democracy Capital Dist (NY)
Alliance for Democracy (NY)
Alliance for Democracy, San Fernando Valley Chapter (CA)
Alliance for Jewish-Christian-Muslim Understanding (MA)
Alliance for the Global Wellness Fund Treaty (PA)
Alliance for Tolerance and Freedom (PA)
Altar Magazine (NY)
Alternative Media Project (MA)
American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee -- ADC (NY)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC (US)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC (HI)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC (VT)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- Africa Initiative
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- Chicago (IL)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- Int. Program Exec Committee (NY)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC (IA)
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC --Nat. Youth & Counter-Military Recruitment Program
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- New England Regional
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- Pacific Southwest Region
American Friends Service Committee -- AFSC -- (DC)
American-Iranian Friendship Committee (NY)
American Muslims for Jerusalem (DC)
American Muslim Society of the Tri-State Area (PA)
American Renaissance
American Transformation (ME)
Americans for Social Justice (DC)
Amnesty International at BGSU
Amnesty International, Maine Chapter (ME)
An Absurd Response to an Absurd War (NY)
Andersonville Neighbors for Peace (IL)
Angry White Guys For Affirmative Action (CA)
Ann Arbor Coalition Against the War (MI)
Ann Arbor Mobilization for Global Justice (MI)
ANSWER-New Hampshire (NH)
Anti-Capitalist Convergence (DC)
Anti-Imperialist News Service (IL)
Anti-War Action! (MI)
Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort -- AWARE (IL)
AntiWar Video Fund
Antiwar.com
AntiwarStudents.com
Apollo Project
April6Vt Lobby (VT)
Apsara Images (CO)
Arab Student Union, University of Michigan-Dearborn (MI)
Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (NY)
Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice (AZ)
Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus (AZ)
Arizona Green Party (AZ)
Arkansas Coalition for Peace and Justice (AR)
Arlington United for Justice with Peace (MA)
Artist Action Network
Artists and Writers for Peace (CA)
Artists Reject Tyranny (NY)
Arts for Action (CA)
ASD
Ash Moon Community Association (IL)
Asian American Movement E-zine (MA)
Astorians For Peace and Justice (NY)
Atomic Mirror (CA)
Attorneys Against the War (NY)
Audience (NJ)
Aurora We The People Peace & Justice Coalition (IL)
Austin Against War (TX)
autonomedia (NY)
Aware Movement (NJ)
. . .
[and that is just the letter “Aâ€]
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1879

Its easy to understand that so many have been duped and mesmerized . . . and maybe drugged too!

 

Patrick,

Thanks for the links.

Yes, the term corporatist is out there, that's why I said I more or less invented it. And for the purposes of this thread, that is what I did as I started with an abstraction then tried to use the word. It's the abstraction I was trying to convey, the word is just a word. I'm not a journalist, nor very good debater.

(Did you see how Gore just got an award for his instrumental contibutions to the internet? It was announced last week. He too overused a word, yet the abstraction that he was conveying was factual.)

And I omitted the link to PPAW. (Edit: PFAW) I usually put links in, but missed that one so thanks. I think it was because this thread did not pan out full of links. Sorry about that.

As for your list, I think it would be fascinating to monitor where their money comes from for all the groups on both sides, as well as monitor where each group puts their effort. Sometimes the stated goal for a group doesn't juve with what they are doing.

I think it was Will Rogers who said "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat". I think this is even more true today. I wonder if an examiniation of those 2 lists will reveal a relative dissaray of the groups on your long list, as those groups fight amongst themselves. (Indeed, a noted "liberal" group in my state just came out in favor of the Republican). (Edit: And I think the very size of your list Patrick speaks to that disarray.)



I'd also be fascinated by the net worth and buying power of the groups on the 2 lists.

I think such an analysis would overwhelmingly strengthen the thrust of the points in my thread.

(It's early and I'm in a rush. If there are any errors in my post above, or links that I have omitted, please help as you see fit. I should probably put this last statement in as my signature.)