REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do you think Wal-Mart is evil?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 14966
PAGE 2 of 4

Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:39 PM

DREAMTROVE



Kmart failed for the same reason all megamarts fail. It's not a long term commercially viable idea. Walmart persists on chronic corruption and illegality. If it were force to abide by all extant laws worldwide it will fold. Someday it's past will catch up with it, and it will crumble, and then we will be griping about RoboMart.

Citizen,

I think I put this forward concisely a few times now. Walmart is the all purpose GUM store. This is something the Soviets and Chinese tried ad nauseum. There are many ways in which it meets this.

But this just explains my abhorance of walmart. It shares the same top down characteristics as socialism, but sure it is mostly a product of capitalism, except to the extent that it's a product of china.

But Capitalism is artificial. There really isn't anything natural about it. At its best, capitalism is an immitation of nature. Unfortunately, as an artificial environment, it must be carefully maintained or it tends towards catastophic failure, and degenerates into either socialism or aristocracy.

One of the major, probably the most major, control that helps free market capitalism be sustained is the anti-trust, which has completely fallen apart lately.

Natural biological evolution typically is much less subject to single species domination because competition is far more fierce, with a trillion or so competitors. A capitalism like this would be much more resistant to Walmarts.

But even so, the human race is evolution's Walmart, and if we don't abide by certian environmentalist constraints, it will head to catastrophic failure as well.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:37 PM

FLETCH2


Still not socialism. Top down authority -- authoritarianism, oligarchy, tyrany --- you can find lots of words for what you're describing and some or all of them apply to Nazi's or Soviets-- but socialism is only about who controls production and under capitalism that isn't the people and in capitalist societies that isnt even the government.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:12 AM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, I'll concede the point. If Walmart was socialist, it might have a better healthcare plan.

Monopolism perhaps.

But what I hate about Walmart is in line with why I hate socialism. The top down no choice thing. Walmart hasn't killed millions of people, but it is the GUM store.

Also, production here is Communist China, in the case of Walmart.

BTW, Those words don't just define the socialist states of old, Nazis and Soviets, but also all of the present ones, Zimbabwe, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Syria, North Korea, China, soon Venezuela?

When socialists win an election, and have total dominance, these characterists tend to quickly find their way. Not in a coalition govt. but if the socialists gain a flat out majority. Blair for instance, transforming Britain. Though lately I've heard he's betraying promises of govt.ization, maybe. But then, they often fall by the wayside before creating machinatopia.

I think people get sucked into bad ideas often because they find something they like in them, but the people supporting the one point, often have a whole nightmare slew of them. In time you can convince yourself that you support the other points.

I think lots of people are pro-choice because they are democrats, rather than because they've spent a lot of time trying to figure out when life truly begins.

Similar things could be said about a lot of positions. If socialists offer opposition to corruption, or a plaform of peace, people often follow that, and buy in to the whole line. But, of course, socialism isn't about either of those things. Sometimes people want socialism because they want cheap services. I don't think this is a good reason really. Cheap services would happen if there was adequate competition and deregulation. In extreme situations I could see supporting a subsidy, but only in extreme cases. Usually I think it doesn't need it. Like right at the moment, if I were the govt. I would probably subsidize the Americna auto industry to make a transition to electric cars. I might make this subsidy a loan. But right now, Detroit is about to fold, and it's going to put a million people out of work when it does. But I don't think there would be an industry that would need permanent subsidy.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:17 PM

FLETCH2


The amusing thing about Blair is that he's generally seen as a Thatcherite. He has actually returned some state industries to private hands he has deregulated some areas and a lot of his policies --- his new stance on education for instance can be shown to be things Mrs T wanted in the 1980's.

Britain is a post Thatcherite nation, both of the two major parties are built on that platform except one is generally pro Europe and the other generally anti. You said you liked Michael Howard but he would just as readily followed Bush to war. The surprise wasn't that the Tories would back America with military force but that Labour did. Despite strong links with the Democrats and urgings from Johnson, Harold Wilson didn't deploy British troops in Vietnam for example.

So your general theory that Michael Howard is a traditional Conservative ally is wrong. A Prime Minister Howard asked by Pres. Bush to send troops to Iraq would have been just as happy to do it.

George Galoway the guy you admire so much IS a socialist, he says as much, believes as much which is why he took the traditional left wing stance and voted against the war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


The Tories role was that of the snivelling Democrats, show no resistance, follow us into hell.

It's true it's a weakpoint in my argument. Galloway has gone to form a socialist party. I still admire the way he stood up to Blair, Clinton and Bush.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:50 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

which is why he took the traditional left wing stance and voted against the war.


I have to give this my WTF? response.

Sorry.

It's just...
WTF?

I'm aware that a small segment within the political left has a "peace movement."

But the idea that socialists, or the political left are inherently anti-war is absurd.

US history, world history, even british history proves as much.

As an American I'm most familiar with the American side of things, but my general familiarity of the world is Communists, nazis, baathists, the african ANC, and countless individuals I can name are the most potent agents of war in human history, and all hail from the political left, in fact, all above are socialists.

But I want to take an aside to once again remind people, that among these traditional hawks must be counted the Democratic Party.

If anyone is still a pro-peace libertarian and counts themselves as a "democrat" they are delusional:

1. 1820s Democrats, formed by Jackson on a platform of pro-war, against the indians. This was would claim 12 million lives.

2. 1850s Democrats switch focus to pro-slavery, which eventually would lead southern democrats to secede and declare war on the remaining United States. This war would claim one million lives.

Afterwords the Democrats essentially became marginalized until a split in the Republican Party when TR refused to back Taft.

3. 1917, US under Wilson enters into WWI, and directly follows into conflict with Russia in the Russian Civil War. Millions die, US shares some responsibility.

4. 1941, US is attacked by Japan, after the incident, avoidable or not, FDR enter into a truly avoidable mad conflict with the goal of conquering Japan. 15 million die, US shares some responsibility.

5. After dropping two nulear bombs on civilian populations, Truman goes to war in Korea. 2 million people die.

6. 1961, US Under Kennedy invades Cuba, and later also Vietnam. 1963, Johnson drastically upscales conflict with Vietnam. 3 million people die.

In all of these examples, the president in question was a democrat, and the war was a left-on-left war, where both sides were the left side political faction of their country with the exceptions of WWI germany and WWI japan.

I left out WWII because I have to agree with the decision to go to war with Germany in WWII, I would have even liked if we had done in sooner. But I would point out that the bulk of casualties of this war came from the conflict between Germany and Russia, which was another left-on-left conflict.

But lets turn more towards the present.
In Democrats since then, after a 4 year peaceful stint of Carter, we reverted to the Clinton War machine, a series of small wars with heavy casualties, Iraq, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, overall uppwards of a million casualties.

While Kosovo might arguably be least death, the others are not, and Clinton's avoidance of the high casualty wars in Rwanda and Croatia were proof enough that he wasn't concerned with preventing genocide, adding to the Kosovo pipeline theory.

Next, we go to the current state of the Democratic Party.

In the last Democratic primary, here's what we had a landslide victory for the most pro-war candidate, who beat the next contender 5:1. This second place contender was Edwards, another pro-war candidate.

The top peace candidate took in 2% of the final vote tally.

By contrast, in the last Republican Primary in 2000, the sole hawk, with his preset plan for war nudged in with 50% while not mentioning his pro-war stance as a platform point. The opposition split 25/25 making a walk for Bush.

PLEASE NOTE:

I'm not saying this to insult democrats, the left, or peace minded people.

I'm trying to make a point here:

The sensible right needs two things in order to regain control of their party:

1. Unity. A solid heads up like Kerry vs. Edwards, or like Reagan vs. Bush Sr. in 1980. (remember at this point in his life, Bush Sr. was anti-neocon, unlike today)

2. Just a few more votes.

For the sensible left to win would take a miracle. If Jesus rode down his heavenly ass, by which I mean donkey, and blessed the candidate in person, it still might not be enough for him to win.

The 2%, even if it can push to 5% does not make a dent in the pro-big govt. pro-war democratic nomination.

However, if you were to join our side, it might be just enough to push the neocons out of the office.

I'd actually like a little feedback on this one.



Questions? Comments?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 6:58 PM

FLETCH2


You have no left wing parties so your analysis is flawed. You have two parties financed by business who buy electoral support from two different segments of society. To say that the Democrats are left wing and actually give a damn about poor people outside of an election cycle is like saying that Washington Republicans are God fearing Christians -- they talk the talk but once they have your vote forget it.

The same little history map you held up would look like this in the UK.

WW1 -- Asquith (Liberal)
WW2 -- Chamberlain (Conservative)
Korea -- Atlee (Labour)/Churchill (Conservative)
Suez -- Eden (Conservative)
Cypress -- Macmillian (Conservative)
Vietnam --- Labour was in power and resisted US pressure to become involved in Vietnam.
Falklands War -- Thatcher (Conservative)
Gulf War 1 --- Thatcher (Conservative)
Kosovo --- Blair (Labour)
Afgahnistan -- Blair (Labour)
Iraq -- Blair (Labour)

Like I said our Tony bucks the trend a little. The Liberal party was the direct equivalent of your Democrats.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, if the democrats don't fit your definition of liberal, and none of the socialists states do, then your fantasy liberal doesn't exist.

I'm not saying conservatives don't fight war, but the idea that the left is somehow peaceful is again a pure fantasy.

Sure, there were things like Gulf War I, or the spanish american war. But let me add this.

So recently, you'd say that your wars have been conservatives, until blair.

But then you're wars weren't really that big.

Excluding war with germany, wwii, in which britain could hardly be called the aggressor. I think the war against the nazis everyone is off the hook. I let FDR, a liberal democrat, off the hook for it.

America, being under left rule (america's left, which btw, meshes with the world's left) has fought much bigger wars. Russia, China, as left states have been almost constantly at war, or in support of a war abroad.

But I didn't intend to start a partisan bicker.

Just putting forth that anti-war was not a good reason to be leftist. It isn't a reason to be leftist at all.

That would be like being a right winger because you wanted to help poor people. Nothing wrong with helping poor people, but if that was your main objective, right wing philosophy, which lends itself much more to a sink or swim sort of deal, would probably not be the first choice. Similarly, leftist ideals of universal equality lead directly to conflict and global militarism, and so if overall peace and prosperity was your main goal, being a leftist wouldn't support that goal or make logical sense.

I think there are left leaning corporations. Not socialist of course, because socialism is an anathema. But true, our presidential tickets are pretty corrupt as you say, but there is more to the parties than that. Generally, democrats create large scale social programs that at least aim to help poor people.

On the right, it's not fair to apply the christian label to us as a lot. Until recently, chrisianity, even christian fundementalism wasn't solidly right. The GOP has built itself much more firmly on being pro-business.

I readily admit that to say the GOP admin. in the white house today is pro-business would be even more absurd than to say they are fundamentalist christians. Well, fundamentalist theocrats, since many of them are jewish, and quite openly so, it would be wrong to say they claim to be chrsitians.

But still and all, you have a point.

However. If we did have actual socialism, world history indicates we might have even bloodier wars. Usually someone else started the war, and America came ot the party. Iraq is the only exception I can think off-hand since the 19 century wars.

Here are my principle political concerns:

Environmentalism
Peace
Pro-Business
Individual rights

Given these, with about equal weight to all, I would pretty clearly be better off as a republican, historically speaking.

I grant that if I just said

Environmentalism

then it would be much more of a toss up.

But traditionally, Bush excluded, the GOP is more likely to give me:

Peace
Individual rights

And it is much much more like to give me

Pro-Business

So, well there it is.

It would pain me to think that someone was on the left because they wanted peace, but I think it is so. I would hope that some of those people could help us over here on the right who want peace, by adding to our numbers, making a majority. That's the only way I can see of having peace as a platform in the whitehouse. It's just not going to happen on the democratic side of things, and pro-peace voters should realize this.

To be fair, I would suspect there are probably pro-economic equality christians who vote on the right because of religion who also delusional.

Finally,

The center is whoever is in the middle, regardless of where that stand is. I think when the entirety of the world's political spectrum is taken into account, the most overall rightwing country is India, the most overall leftwing country is China, the rest of us fall inbetween, and America is pretty much in the middle. Thus the American middle is pretty close to the world middle. Sure the british middle is to the left of that. The european, western european, middle is also.

But the American middle is at quesiton here.

The middle votes, Bob Hamburg of West Indian Falls, Louisiana, or whoever he or she is, defines the center.

Everyone to the left of that, it left. By definition. That's what the left is.

So, the democrats are left, republicans are right. If you're a purist, and need to split it exactly 50/50, you might say lincoln chafee was left, but that probably wouldn't be fair to mr. chafee.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:52 PM

SUPERDUCKYWHO


Wal-mart = Zerca Corp. (Anyone who's a Star Wars Junky, or who has played KOTOR knows what I'm talking about)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:07 PM

FLETCH2


My point wasn't that Republicans WHERE God fearing Christian zealots it was that they pandered to that constituency come election time without ever truely delivering. Democrats seem to throw the poor a bone and then wait for them to vote. As George Calin says the dumb F**** really believe that this millionaire and his friends actually care about poor people? It's corrupt bullshit.

In my country I used to know exactly where the parties stand.


Conservatives

Pro Law and Order
Pro Defence
Pro Business
Lower Tax
Anti local government (because if you are a tax cutter but you need big central government for L&O and defence you make cuts elsewhere)
Unilateralist
Not fond of Federal Europe

Labour

Pro disarmament
Pro Unions
Pro services (and by default not tax cutters)
Pro local government
Multilateralist
Slightly pro Europe (though that topic ebbs and flows in both parties)

So a Tory will pay for tax cuts by slashing services while keeping high defence spending sacrosant. Labour will pay for services by raising taxes and/or cutting defence.

This is part of the reason we tend to get involved militarily when a Tory government is in power, because it's hard to justify spending on a military you don't use.

Neither of these parties is for small (central) government -- the current civil service is a Tory invention and the kinds of programs Labour favours needs a big bureaucracy to run it.

Neither is overly concerned with the kinds of civil liberties Americans find so vexing. We absolutely know that our government spies on us and does all kinds of naughty things both home and abroad irrespective of who is in power.

Oh and neither party is socialist -- though one still claims to be. Interestingly the left wing of the Tory party is now to the left of the Blairite front bench on a lot of issues.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 4:21 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sure it's corrupt, but mostly Clinton and Bush. Before that, and also in other offices, it is usually the case.

If your right is truly a warmonger, I don't know that much about british politics as I said, then it might explain why your country is more left.

The EU is an appalling idea. If you were to ask me for a referendum on the USA, there is no way I would vote for it. I don't think there's any way it would pass a vote by the general public. The independent nation of New York would be so vastly superior that there really would be no competition. Add to that the fact that support for a federal govt. which gives just about exactly nothing back and takes 1/2 of everyone's paycheck, I'd say it's no contest.

The situation for such a referendum in the great lake states would be just as bad, new england it would be worse, and pacific coast states worst of all. The strongest support would come from the red states, but the deep south is so heavily nationalistic, and that would be confederate nationalism, not American really, that it would fail there as well. It would definitely lose Florida and Texas, and thus the United States would come to an end. America would pretty much continue to function as it always had, only without a federal govt.

Given what a disaster it's been here, the idea the Europe would copy that boggles the mind. And that's a best case scenario, that the EU becomes like the US Federal govt. Worst case of course is that it becomes the new Soviet Union.

Here of course it's not so clear what's left and what's right.

At the moment, we have a supposedly conservative president who's instituting the largest social program of all time in him new medicare package, and he's following a liberal who slashed such programs across the board.

Our "conservative" president actually said in a recent speech that one of the reasons he's fighting this war is women's rights. Everything, lately is out the window.

So when I try to define conservatism, I have to look back at the pre-Reagan era, before neocons and corrupt corporates really got a hold on things Nixon, Eisenhower, Coolidge, T.Roosevelt, and so on back John Quincy Adams. Hoover is obviously a disaster and completely skipable :)

When I look at Bush, Clinton, I see nothing but liberals. It's possible I may be willing to compromise, as they aren't anything. There's a lot of corruption there. I think there's some genuine socialist intentions there in the PNAC crowd, I just disagree with the goal, but I don't think they're completely insincere. I'm not sure Clinton was completely insincere, I think he was just wrong. I think Bush is completely insincere.

Conservatives believe, in this country

1. Limited government
2. Free market capitalism. Pro-Business.
3. Isolationist foreign policy
4. Meritocracy
5. The right of every group to more or less set its own rules and live by them

Liberals believe

1. Big Govt. particularly for two purposes: Social support systems and public labor projects.
2. Restraints on free trade, tarriffs, taxes, generally things which might increase federal revenue at the expense of business.
3. Interventionist military policy, hopefully on the side of the downtrodden. Attempts to change other nations rules to fit a western model.
4. Economic Parity
5. A "correct" set of rules of social behavior that everyone should abide by.

In general, I would shorted these to a simple two lines

Liberals believe in universal equality
Conservatives believe in preservation of a way of life.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 4:37 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Liberals believe in universal equality
Conservatives believe in preservation of a way of life.

A more cynical take could be:

Liberals want to set criminals free to rape and pillage
Conservatives want people killed so we can have coffee and oil

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 6:12 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Calling Wal-Mart Socialist is like saying my house is a dictatorship.

Also, the GUM store was state-owned, state-run and state-supplied. Wal-Mart is none of the above. And the GUM store was a bazaar of individual shops, as such it doesn’t even resemble Wal-Mart, instead it would look far more like a mall.

The distinction between the British and the American political parties is an interesting one. In general, the Tories loosely compare to the Republicans and Labour loosely compares to the Democrats, although Labour is generally, I think, much further to the Left then the Democrats generally appear, but I think that is changing. There has been considerable mix up lately and I wouldn’t care to try to figure it out where it stands.

As for the American parties, there is a common misconception with the characterizations of the two major American parties that they are almost intrinsically Right-wing or Left-wing as these terms are defined today. The terms Right and Left are simply a dichotomy. To describe a political party you have to be careful to define these terms, otherwise they are meaningless.

Republicans have not always, nor necessarily, been the party of American Conservatism, in fact prior to the 1960’s this was probably a description that would have more accurately characterized many Democrats. These Rockefeller Republicans, as they are sometimes called, referred to themselves as “liberals,” a term I still use and identify with today, but one that has become bastardized somewhat. A liberal was someone who believed in small decentralized government and private business, because these were ideas that were believed to facilitate a free or unregulated lifestyle. Liberals (lower case ‘L’) were likely to be somewhat socially liberal, but the Republican party had been socially liberal going all the way back to its creation on a anti-slavery platform. The social liberalism of Republicans was more a “couldn’t care as long as I get rich or no one bothers me” sort of philosophy. However, in spite of the apparent similarities the modern Left would have had a very hard time identifying with these Republicans. They would not have been likely to champion for the right to abortion or gay rights and generally held a somewhat realpolitick view on national defense and foreign policy.

Likewise prior to the 1960’s a Conservative was likely to be a Democrat. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who opposed the Civil Rights Bill and most, if not all, proponents of segregation were Democrats. The pre-60s democrats were true social Conservatives holding strongly to the religious, aristocratic and nationalistic philosophies that characterized much of American thought during the 19th century. Although it would not have been accurate to characterize them as “Left-wing,” the Democrats did considered themselves to be the champions of the working class and poor. Not Marxist, but probably very Keynesian.

This shift in politics is sometimes attributed to Goldwater, but the truth is that it was probably a long time coming and much larger in scope then any one person could have affected. This realignment basically merged the two parties and created two new amalgamated parties. Pro-business but religion Republicans. Pro-government but liberal Democrats.

There is a new shift in politics that has affected the Democrats, so far. The Democrats of today have moved excruciatingly close to becoming a true Left-wing party in the flavor of those generally only seen in Europe. They seem to be adopting ideas about political and economic reform that would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. Their absolutist support for a right to abortion is one example. This is sometimes characterized as the Postmodern Left, although this is perhaps misleading. It refers to the “re-emergence” of a 1960s style Left-wing intelligentsia. Although this is not a re-emergence per se, since the Democrats were never that far Left in the 1960s. In reality it is the maturing of the “hippy” movement, which has found roots in the Democratic Party, driving it to adopt ideas about social and economic reform that might not have been acceptable by either party, 50 years ago. I don’t know how far this has gotten, and it is possible that its influence is overstated or a reliving of the “glory” days of Clinton. But I don’t think so. Blaming this on Clinton is as bad as blaming the realignment of the Republican Party on Goldwater. This emergence of the radical Left as a true political power in the US is a long time coming. In fact, some have argued that it would have happened during the 50’s and 60’s were it not for the fear of the Soviet Union. I personally think that this is an effect of the 1960’s realignment, which created Democrats that were free of the burden of American Conservatism which had acted as a counterweight to their “working class” positions. Now coupled with social reform, the pro-working class position offers an unobstructed view of socialism, and for the first time in American history, the Marxism of the Left-wing European parties may begin to play a real role in American politics.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 7:20 AM

DREAMTROVE


Finn

Never been to your house, but if you say so.

No, the State is Walmart owned.

I didn't really see any shif tin the GOP until reagan, and then it was more of a corrupt global socialist shift, which has since inceased exponentially.

I don't think that issue switches in the GOP and Democratic parties represent total switches of position. FDR was pretty much the same kind of democrat as Carter, Coolidge was basically the same sort of Republican as Ford, so it's hard for me to credit that between 1925 and 1975 there was an essential reverse of parties.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 7:50 AM

CHRISISALL


As ever, very interesting, Finn.
You should get paid for this.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 1:32 PM

AUXARC


I have mixed feelings about Wal-Mart, but I do not feel like it is any more evil than any other corporation. I come from a small town with a Wal-Mart. Literally two grocery stores, two drug stores, 3 or 4 small clothing stores, and a Dairy delite. Except for one of the clothing stores all of the others are still open, and the one that closed sold over priced clothing that small town folks couldn't afford anyway. There are many children wearing cute affordable Wal-Mart clothing in our school system that wouldn't have been able to afford the clothing from anywhere else. Living some ways from a city, the Wal-Mart was a godsend for many everyday things that a family needed. It was one of the major poviders of jobs for kids in the town. It provided scholarships opportunities for many kids that couldn't afford to go to school, as well as an opportunity to transfer jobs to a store close to a university if one needed work while getting an education. My sister worked at Wal-Mart briefly, and when she was in an accident the management came out to our house with plates, cups, soda, and supplies to help my family out. Besides educational donations, Wal-Mart has donated a large sum of money to such natural disasters as Katrina, etc. My local Wal-Mart is not a supercenter, but we have two supercenters in towns an hour to two hours away. They are heavily invested in finding missing children. Every year they fund workshops in their stores and local malls to educate parents and children about abduction and to give out id photos and fingerprints. When a local child went missing they provided fliers and other supplies to help in the search. I could probably go on naming more if I wanted to. These are just off the top of my head. Right now I live across from a supercenter in a bigger town while attending school. Although I don't like the supercenter as much as the regular Wal-Mart of my hometown, I don't think that it is evil. I'll shop there. It's affordable and convenient, and if it doesn't have a sauce or ice cream that I want (Wal-Mart does tend to stock a lot of one brand) I go to the Kroger. Just like I go to the Kroger if I don't want to wait in a long line. Or I will go to Target, K-Mart, or even Lowes. That is capitalism. There are choices out there. There are different stores. One doesn't have to go to Wal-Mart as many people on this topic have chosen not to do. It is a competative market. Wal-mart may lose customers as if becomes more impersonal (seems some people here would be in this category), and if so, it will have to change to compete with newer stores. So, do I think that Wal-Mart is evil? No. Nor do I think that it is the epitome of good. It's just a store to patronage as I feel best, and as I feel it's worth my time and money.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 1:35 PM

CITIZEN


Wow, Finn, I agree pretty much completely!


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 2:40 PM

CHRISISALL


auxarc, I'm glad that your Wal-Mart experience is a good one. Midwest and small-towns definitly need that kind of store. Now if Wal-Mart would just try not to purchase their product from questionable sources, we'd (and they'd) have it made!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 4:44 PM

FLETCH2


Finn, nice analysis.

DT, I think there are a few things that need to be understood.

First the opposite of conservative is not liberal but progressive. The opposite of liberal is not conservative but authoritarian. There are conservative libertarians that are also fiscal conservatives, there are progressives that are authoritarian.

Second, just because a UK party calls itself "Conservative" doesnt mean that they sign up for exactly the same policies that an American conservative would recognise. Like I said before a Russian conservative is a hard line communist who dreams of a return of the Soviet Union.

The way I see it is this. A conservative is someone who is either content with the current reality or who looks back at some past time as his country's heyday. You seem to like 1955 but I know other US conservatives that prefer 1905 (or any time before the Federal Income tax) there are others that favour that Jeffersonian rural ideal that never did exist. In any case they cherry pick their "ideal moment" from a country's good times, you wont find a conservative who really wants the days of the Depression back or thinks the US was perfect during the Civil War.

British Conservatives are not war mongers but they were the party of Empire. The often lampooned traditional Tory voter "angry of Surrey" is a retired Indian Army major who writes letters to the Telegraph complaining about long haired kids in the street and how a few years in the army will sort them out. To a British conservative the heyday was back in the 1920's sometime when teh Empire was at its height, people were more polite and reverential to their betters and the Royal Navy ruled the waves. It was never hard to justify enhanced defence spending to this group. We are an interventionist nation --- that is how you build an Empire -- so if someone messes with you then you deal with them by whatever means military or covert.

By contrast the British left distrusts the military because previous governments have used it against their own people. Traditionally they are anti colonial and of the belief that although you can help other countries solve their problems it is not your place to play world policeman.

Consequently in peace time Labour traditionally cuts defence in favour of social programs. When the Tory's get back in power they cut social programs for defence. Since both sides want to convince the voting public of the "wiseness" of these choices, Labour highlights the improvement in public services under their administration, Conservatives highlight advances in crime prevention and security. A good way to highlight the wiseness of defence spending is to actually use the military operationally.

Blair is a confusion. He's spent more on pure military R&D than any of his immediate predecessors of either party. He is happily planing the construction of career battle groups, giving Britain it's first big jet careers since the early 1970's it's likely he will replace the Trident nuclear submarine fleet which Labour opposed building back in the 1980's.

If you think that Bush goes against the standard Republican type towards the left (which I question but that's your opinion) Blair has moved harder to the right than any previous Labour leader. In fact he is to the right of Howard in a lot of instances.

Your comments about the Federal government and the EU. I assume you know that the State of New York was far from convinced about adopting the US Constitution precisely because of potential states rights issues. In fact the Federalist papers exist because the Federal consitition was such a hard sell in NY. If you read Federalist and then look at opinions over the EU constitution it is exactly the same arguments 200+ years later. The irony I find in all this is that some of teh more political boards I'm on have US Neocon types cat calling because the EU can't get it's act together, while most of the US conservatives I know would have been happier had the US stayed a looser confederation than it is now.

The problem with the EU is that it is a politicians project and not a people's project. Folks are generally happy with things as they were back around 1990, when free movement of people, money and trade were enacted. It gives us the freedom to live where we want, work where we want and get up and leave it the nation state you are in no longer suits you. Seems good to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 5:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch,

A couple things.

I'm kind of busy lately, so if you post too much in an argument, you win, because it might be a while before I have time to read it all.

Second, just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Progressive conservative movements have existed in the pass, there was for instand the Progressive party, in the early 20th c.

In recent years the term 'progressive' was co-opted by left wing fringe groups. This doesn't mean that it's correct. Often these groups represnt ideas which neither represent progress nor change.

There have been no end of liberal-authoritarian movements, so that counterpoint is out.

Since there was never a liberal-conservative movement, the two are fairly mutually exclusive. Pretty much the entire world views them as opposites.


Also, it's well known that the opposite of authoritarian is libertarian, which has no relation to liberal.

Here's the mistake many people make: Linguistic roots often share little meaning similarity, and generally are different applications of like qualities. Both words are derived from latin words that have distinct different meanings.

Libertarian is derived of course from liberty, which is derived from the latin word "Liber" meaning "Free."

Liberal is derived directly from the latin word "Liberalis" meaning "Generous."

The two are not related specifically to one another. Liberal, therefore is not directly related to freedom, as in personal rights, it is only related free in the context that generous means to give freely, or giving without restraint.

Everything in liberal philosophy today is very much in line with this concept of generosity.

Conservative is from conserve, which in turn is from the latin "conservare" meaning to keep or preserve. In relation to use, it is to give or use sparingly, to use with caution.

That which means, at it's core, to give or use sparingly is undeniably the opposite of to give generously.

By this base, it is totally correct to say "President Bush has a liberal energy policy."

Social Conservatism applies this concept of preservation to society, resisting social change.

Social liberalism by contrast would be to be generous with social change.

I am simply making these points to make sure that it understood. I, myself, am both a social conservative and a resource and fiscal conservative, but they are not the same thing.

Clinton was pretty much a fiscal conservative but social liberal. Bush is pretty much a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.

But these labels, which accurately describe key parts of their political character, do not define all of them. Cinton and Bush, are, for example, both social global militarists.

Many positions that politicians and their parties may take may not take aren't tied to this left/right dichotomy.

In America, during my lifetime, pro-police anti-crime has largely been a democratic party agenda. This is probably becuase policeman's unions are largely democratic party supporters, probably because they operate out of cities, and urban society is more pro-democrat. Rural society is more republican. A county by country map of the 2004 election strongly backs up this idea. Almost all cities are blue, almost all countryside is red, in America.

Your breakdown does make sense, and if such military spending isn't totally consistant with the ideas of conservatism, nobody's perfect.

I will concede something here.

Bush is, to me, not the issue. PNAC is the issue, and they are born of the political far left intellectual elite of a few ivy league left wing education political philosophical groups.

I use this to attack Bush as a left wing divergent, because it's ideologically easier. Consevatives are less likely to be afraid of someone being "too conservative" than of someone being a liberal mole.

I personally, don't think the Bush Admin is in any way conservative, really, in practice, except from a christian extremist perspective. But this is a voter draw. Bush's keystone policies are all pretty liberally based.

I would see Blair as a left wing extremist, and argue this for the same ideological reason, but position by position I don't know how he would relate to the entire spectrum of past the British leaders. Overall, But for me, again, I would want people to oppose Blair, and so "liberal extremist" to a group of conservatives, would also be scarier than "conservative mole."

I suspect just the opposite is true for you. A Labor MP who is a liberal extremist and a Tory who is a liberal mole just aren't as threatening as a Labor MP who is a conservative mole or a Tory who is a right wing extremist.

What I think we're really trying to say is that these people who we dislike are out of the political mainstream. They may be off to one side in a way which is outside of the left/right continuum.

But what I'd like to see is Labor return to being what it used to be, and Democrats and Republicans returning to what they used to be, not just because I'm a retropublican, but because this new crowd is particularly scary.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 6:21 PM

FLETCH2


Actually I don't feel threatened by either. In many ways Mrs Thatcher was one of the most progressive Prime Minister's in British history. She wasn't moping over lost Empire or wishing for it to be 1922 again, she wanted to go forwards. In fact in a lot of ways she threatened Conservitism more than anything else. Tory PM's have often been minor sons of the nobility, she was a green grocers daughter from Lincolnshire. In the end she wasn't ousted by a popular vote in a free election but by back halls manouvers by Tory grandees.

Politically "Tony" is probably closer to me than any previous Labour leader, I'm generally supportive of a lot of initiatives. If anything distresses me it is that the Tory party hasn't got off of it's ass and made a go of being an opposition. Labour were useless in the 1980's and that lack of effective opposition let the Tory leadership get lazy and sloppy. Like you say competition for ideas is a good thing, it makes good ideas better and shows bad ones up for what they are. Politically I like Blair but for the health of our Democracy I prefer there to be two clear cut and equally defended possitions and that isn't the case.

Thatcher's Tory's and Blairs New Labour are both progressive, unilateral, military leaning parties. My Conservative friends call him "Thatcher lite" and say he stole her handbag. In any case we need competition on ideas.

And you are wrong on "Liberal" please stop redefining the language to fit with your political agenda. From the Oxford English Dictionary...

liberal

• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

• noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

— DERIVATIVES liberalism noun liberality noun liberally adverb.

— ORIGIN originally meaning suitable for a free man: from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free man’.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 7:07 PM

DREAMTROVE


Not fulfilling a political agenda here. Heard the term described this way all my life. Liberalis IS the root word of liberal. The extension made here, even if it's in the oed, is supposition. The relation is not directly from liber, as it is in libertarian.

Maybe in britain a liberal is a libertarian, in the united states this is neither in practice nor in usage of the word in any way true. Libertarians are generally viewed as right of center, but never view strictly as a synonym for liberal.

Continuing with my definition, which I learned in school, and has never been questioned or opposed in my 36 years on this planet, until now, by you, and is supported by american sources. (webster, I just checked, lists your definition first, under the heading "archaic" and then continues with mine.)

Bear in mind that to us, here in America, whether you think our culture is totally invalid or not, liberals have been diametrically opposed to personal liberty for a couple of centuries now, so I am not about to concede this point. I would soon concede that by your definition, America essentially has no liberals.

To move on. Liberal. When used well, generously gives so as to bring equality. Liberals, in America, if you want me to dub them a new word, Ameriliberals, or something, I mean largely democrats, and left wing fringe parties, the american left of the american center.

The American Liberals seek to bring about equality. It is there driving force, their raison d'etre. It is not to increase indidual liberty, which they never even supported. The supporters of individual liberty are libertarians.

American Conservatives seek to conserve the American way of life, and use resources sparingly.

Used well, American Liberalism creates equality through generosity. Used poorly, it leads to corruption and theft.

Conservatism, used well, preserves a way of life and the plurality of resources. Used poorly, it is miserly and selfish.

So, Bush is a bad fiscal liberal. Clinton was a sometimes bad and a sometimes good fiscal conservative.

I'm angry because it's possible that Americans have twisted your language, and for that I apologize. But what I'm most angry about is the insinuation. I certainly didn't try to redefine the words here. I think, no, I'm certain, that these are the applied definitions of these words, and that they are 100% consistant with their latin roots. The idea that liberal means libertarian is not consistant with it's latin roots, and at least in America is not commonly used in that way.

I thought I was just setting the record straight here. I think we might have a problem in communication. I don't want to argue with the OED, even if I do think it is a liberal construction, and is bound to look more friendly on the word liberal. But all academia is pretty much a liberal construction.

Liberalis means generous. it's only direct connection to liber is that it means to give freely.

Liber was originally the roman god of wine and vineyards. If you want to track things back that far. Saying that liberal is personal freedom is no more accurate than saying that liberal is alcoholic.



So...



All aspersions aside, I'm not wrong.

I would be open to the posibility that in England you may use this word to mean what we mean when we say libertarian. If this is so, then we may have more in common then I thought.

Where do the lib dems stand on the four issues I mentioned, conservation, fiscal policy, libertarianism, and militarism ?





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 8:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Both liberal and libertarian share the same Latin root. The word Liber was a title granted to free men in the Roman world. Liberalis is simply the adjective of liber, therefore it essentially means “of or relating to liber.” “Generous” is a connotation of Liberalis, not a definition. The association comes by way of another Latin word which was also a title of freedmen in the Roman world: ingenui. “Generous” is a connotation of liberalis because liberalis is the adjective of both liber and ingenui. So essentially, in its most generally definition, liberalis means of or relating to liber et ingenui.

Rome had two different types of freedmen or liberi, called the libertini and the ingenui. Both were free men under Roman law, but there was a distinction made between men who were born free (ingenui) and men who become free (libertini), and traditionally this line was loosely drawn along lines of wealth and social status. We know this because the word patricii was once synonymous with ingenui. (If you look up the word “generous” in the dictionary, you’ll see that it used to mean “highborn.”)

In a side note, the distinction between these two types of freedmen is important to understand the significance of the American concept of Liberty and why it was so different compared to previous ideas of Liberty that had been instituted throughout the classical world and even later in such nations as England for instance with induction of the Magna Carta. Liberty had always been a function of birth. In other words, a person was not guaranteed freedom unless they were born free (assuming they met what ever other social criteria, such as being male, for instance.) Otherwise, someone had to become free. This was a concept that was inherent in all forms of political liberty until the American concept of liberty created the inalienable right of freedom, which is that, presumably, for the first time in civilized history a nation had made the concept of liberty independent of birth. Now of course in a somewhat ironic twist, it would be many years before the US actually give up its own aristocratic practices, but nonetheless the Declaration of Independence remains the first document to declare freedom as independent of birth, and therefore “liberty” and not “generous” becomes the concept of freedom.

Although, some concepts of contemporary political freedom, such as socialism, are based on the idea of a “generous” kind of freedom, instead of a “liberal” kind of freedom. So aristocracy is still alive and well in our world and thriving in philosophies of the far Left, as much as the Left might want to deny that sometimes.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 9:22 PM

FLETCH2


Wow, what an excellent reply!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 9:40 PM

FLETCH2


DT:

OED isn't "liberal" unless you just want to characterise my whole country and language as being part of the "conspiracy"

I'm sure that if we used "Libertarian" in place of "pedophile" for long enough people might take it to mean the same thing, or Liberals might choose to pretend their name had a different Latin root. False association, the changing of meanings of words, the manipulation of language to demonize and illigitimise ideas that you have no interlectual defence for is an old and well known trick of propagandists.

Read 1984.. redefinition of the meaning of words is the first part of manipulating truth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2005 9:53 PM

AUXARC


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
auxarc, I'm glad that your Wal-Mart experience is a good one. Midwest and small-towns definitly need that kind of store. Now if Wal-Mart would just try not to purchase their product from questionable sources, we'd (and they'd) have it made!

Chrisisall


Thank you. I felt like Wal-Mart deserved some credit where it was due. It has helped both my family and my hometown-although I'm sure it helps that most of the employees do come from the local community and know each other by name (think Mayberry ). That being said, you are completely right about Wal-Mart's purchasing practices. Wal-Mart's good deeds shouldn't negate it's more questionable business practices. Both should be acknowledged so that the good can be encouraged and the not so good deterred.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:03 AM

20THCENTFOXHATER


Walmart IS evil, or at least partly evil. I worked there two years ago, and I'll never step foot in one again.

"I aim to misbehave."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:22 AM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch,

I get it. not the pedophile thing. yuck. Thw two liberal definition thing.

I was saying etymologically, there was nothing wrong with liberal=alcoholic if its root is liber, which it's not.

But it's much different.

Think about it this way:

American political tradition is older than these words, as of course is british. So rather than purely copying the term, generations of American intellectuals studied the laguage, and applied the definitions of the words consistant with their latin roots as they understood them.

Independently the brits did the same thing.

The secret here seems to be that despite surface similarities, our two political systems are quite different.

It's not that "Liberal" and "Conservative" have been demonized in America, which they undoubtedly have, but that they are applies differently by their advocates here than they would be in britain.

I read several references to the idea that lib dems were actually conservative, that is, from an American perspective. A liberal democrat, in America, would mean someone like Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry.

To the people who support liberal politics in America, it's not a label slung on the left by the right, it's an ideology openly embraced. It is based not on personal freedom, that would be called libertarian (NOTE this is NOT spin, it has nothing to do with spin, people in America who believe in personal freedom call THEMSELVES libertarians, people in America who believe in a generous fiscal policy call THEMSELVES liberals)

A Liberal, American style, believes:

Strong support for govt. services and the social safety-net. Public works and a generous spending policy, most often relying on heavier taxes for the wealth and for industry, in exchange for generous services aimed at establishing universal equality.

This position, btw, is not evil, it's a position I don't happen to hold. The people who do hold it call themselves liberals.

Conservatives, American style, believe:

Limited govt. and support for a free market. Reduce taxes and spending to the minimum level necessary to sustain society while giving greater indpendence to state, groups and individuals, in order to protect preservqation of a way of life.

What I'm getting is that this is NOT what they mean in Britain. I'd like to head perhaps a more level explanation than you rant against libertarians. When I said liberal could just as easily be alcoholic as free, I meant it was equally close, as in not very, etymologically. Neither one means pedophile even remotely so I'm not sure where that came from.

So I was defending the use of "liberal" as Americans use it, to mean generous, which was probably derived by left leaning intellectuals and not right wing spinsters. If the word as you indicated means somethign different in England, it wouldn't be the first time we used the same word to mean two different things. It would also imply that a liberal democrat in the UK might not have that much in common with ted kennedy and john kerry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 7:49 AM

DREAMTROVE


Finn,

The root of liberal, is liberalis, not liber.

Actually I looked liberalis up in a couple of online latin dictionaries, and they both defined it as "generous" and not at all as "free."

I then went and looked up the online dictionary definitions of all of the derivative words listed in the previous post by fletch, and they all meant generous.

Here's the problem with your argument: It says nothing about liberal. You make an excellent case for Liberty means free. I don't doubt that. I never said it didn't. Hence, its derivative political philosophy of freedom: Libertarian.

However. And please note this:

Liberal was already in widespread use as a word before it came into politics, and it was a word meaning generous. So it was not, on the spot, derived from the similar sounding and similarly rooted word "liberty." Liberal, from liberalis, may as you say refer to the generous nature of freedom, but it is just as logical that it is derived directly form the roman god Liber, since generosity was one of his telltale traits.

No liberal, of whom I know quite a few, over the years probably thousands, has ever said to me that the root of their philosophy is freedom. Many many have said it is generosity.

Generosity is not an evil trait, but to say, at least in American useage, that libaral means free instead of generous, is just plain inncorrect.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

The root of liberal, is liberalis, not liber.
That’s a strawman. Liberalis describes liber. It is the adjective of liber. It’s connation as generous is lexical not denotative. Liberalis literally means “of liber.” Liberalis is not even a root; it’s a declined form of liber. Liber is the root.

From the online Latin dictionary at the University of Notre Dame:

liberalis -e [[]of freedom; worthy of a free man , gentlemanlike, courteous, generous[]]; adv. liberaliter.
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=liber&ending=

As such liber is the root of liberalis, and therefore liber is the root of liberal. The dictionary says exactly that:

From the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free;
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point of view. Clearly the Left does seem to operate on a very aristocratic form of freedom in which the concept of freedom is essentially something that is granted to the masses through the generosity of the state. I don’t agree with that form of freedom. I think freedom begins and ends, more or less, with ones own personal responsibility, not entitlements. However that doesn’t mean that I’m going to buy this story that liberal is derived from liberalis and not liber, which is complete nonsense. It’s a complete misunderstanding of the grammar of the Latin word. Liberty, liberal, libertine and libertarian are all derived from the Latin root liber. That the word Liberal was in wide use as meaning “generous” lacks historical context. As I described above the concept of an inalienable right to freedom is something that is only a few hundred years old, prior to that freedom was always understood in the context of aristocracy. Prior to 1776 there was no concept of liberty that was independent of aristocracy.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:24 AM

DREAMTROVE


My point was that, to the best of my understanding, "liberal" as a word came into english as generous, not free. Certainly in the US, the world, even outside of, and before being used in politics, it was used to mean generous as it still is.

To say that liberal is the believe in individual freedom is not only patently false, it's a politicization directly aimed at convincing firefly fans that they are already liberals. The reality is almost 180 degrees away. Liberal govts. are anti-individual liberty, because they are so strongly pro-govt.

Liberal, when applied to politics is not just generously giving freedom, it is more spefically generously giving services. Since interest in personal civil liberties is one of the main reasons I became a conservative, I'm very aware of how NOT pro-presonal freedom the political left and its liberals are.

If they were honest about it, and willingly admitted that they wanted to help poor people, I wouldn't oppose that as readily. I would say: okay, let's find a way to help poor people that doesn't bankrupt business, halt progress, reward out of control population growth, encourage laziness and create overbearing government control. I am a member of the working poor. I certainly am familiar with the problems of our society and the way it is hurting the little guy. But I'm not about to hand over all of my freedom to the govt. in hopes that it will somehow make it better. I think this would not only be naive, but that the whole thing is more of a political ploy used by the leaders of left to both get the consciencious to support them, and to get the poor to hand over power. I think the Democrats have done this routinely, and I think Bush is doing it right now with his medicare plan.

This discussion, and the reason it angers me, is that it is attempting to spin the word liberal a new meaning. The word liberal as a very definite well defined meaning, and everyone uses it daily with no connection to politics, and it is not the result of any spin.

1. "Sprinkle liberally with pepper," does not mean you're free to put the amount of pepper you want, be it much or little, it means generous amounts of pepper.

2. "There was a liberal allocation in the company's budget for supplies" does not mean there was a lot of freedom for the allocators to spring or not spring for supplies, it means there was a large amount of money allocated for supplies.

The derivation we use, at least here in America, of the root liber, when we want to mean freedom is "liberty." The political derivation of liberty that applies to personal freedom is "libertarian."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:20 PM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION


Walmart offers crap pay. But guess what? SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE! Those girls in the high-priced depratment stores are making the same crappy pay and getting the same crappy benefits as the Wally-World people...but THEY have to dress up nicer.

Hourly workers, sales clerk, customer service reps...all are WAY underpaid. Walmart did not create this. I was poor long before Walmart even existed. Walmart just made it possible for people getting crappy wages to afford more stuff.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:43 PM

FLETCH2


You can replace liberal with versions of "free" in both those sentences and they still make sense

Sprinkle freely with pepper
There is some freedom in the budget for office supplies.

That liberal can be used to denote "generous" is not in question. Of the 4 definitions listed in the OED quotation I posted one was just that. The point is that the other 3 meant "free" including the one specifically as the word applied to political useage.

I hadn't given Finn's thoughts on the American usage of Liberty much thought but he's correct. Many thinkers had spoken of Freedon but no state had actually said it was a birthright prior to 1776. The founders being a pretty highly educated and well read bunch would certainly have know the meaning of the word and would probably have called themselves "liberal."

Actually there are a lot of similarities between watching a US Libertarian convention and a UK Liberal one. They are both generally made up of intelligent underachievers who come to the conclusion that they never got anywhere because society is rigged against them. Both want widespread political changes that neither of the mainstream parties that actually run things will ever grant. Both seem to have a permissive, leftist fringe, the Libertarian debate on legal pot would not have looked out of place at a Lib Dem fringe meeting.

Liberals used to be the leftist party in UK politics roughly equivalent to the Democrats. They occupied the political spectrum slightly to the left of center and while the Tory's were the party of big industry and big landowners Liberals were middle class with socially active minor nobility taking the lead. They held political power on and off until the 1920's when the Labour party, a truely leftist party formed by the trade union movement, displaced them. They wondered in the political wilderness for 60 odd years, they are too right wing to be an alternative for hard line Labour voters, too leftist and ineffectual for Tory voters. Then in the early 1980's after Labours defeat by Mrs Thatcher a group of Labour MP's from the right of the party split off and formed the SDP -- Social Democratic Party. For a time they generated some excitement but in the end they formed an electoral pact with the Liberals and eventually the parties merged.

I'm told Lib Dems are extremely good in local government since they view politics as a public service and not a career. They fall down in national terms because they don't tend to have a clear vision that is an alternative to the other two. Their only two initiatives of note "proportional representation" and an "education tax" failed to win support because proportional representation means changing the electoral system in a way that favours the LibDems (and can be writen off as self serving) and the 1% income tax increase to pay for better education panders to their base --- a lot of Lib Dems are teachers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch,

True, but that is the relation. It is how we use the word. No one says it was a liberal assignment, they say it was a flexible assignment. People just don't use the word liberal, outside of politics, to mean that it grants individual freedom.

But more importantly, the political left has favored big govt. and social safety net to the point where they have created the zero freedom police state many times. The liberals here in new york are repeatedly destroying freedom and the way of life in the name of state quality control and equality.

Now we have social services that come into people's household and steal their children for no greater offense than living as poor people do. No beating of kids is necessary, just lack of new clothes or away all day at work is enough to classify as abuse. People on public assistance are set to accord to all sorts of rules I could never abide, and nor could any normal person. If you're poor in this system it's basically like being on parole. For this reason I've never sought these services, I've just known too many people the state has stuck its nose into. So, I have seen decades of liberal work, and became convinced over time, that, while liberal voters care, liberal leaders don't really care, they want power.

So I can't accept a ploy to paint liberal as pro-freedom. It's as bad as painting democrats as pro-business on the grounds they have corporate sponsors, or as painting republicans as champions of affirmative action on the grounds that they ended slavery. It's just not an honest appraisal of what's going on here. It's pure spin.

Back to liberal, the word shows up in the US around the time of the revolution meaning free from restraint, use in ideas such as 'liberal spending.' This supports the 'generous' idea.

It shows up in politics in England in 1801 refering to pro-democracy, which lends it's more to the freedom. It's possible that two long traditions of using the word in politics has continued along these lines.

I certainly don't think that liberal has been used frequently to mean pro-individual liberty in the US, and I don't think that liberals in America would even be friendly to the usage, outside of this forum. I need to make that classification because, though on a right left spectrum we are all across the board here, there is one political area where firefly fans are different from everyone else.

Firefly fans have libertarian symathies, in some way or other and to some extent, because if we didn't feel pro-individual liberty, the show would not appeal to us.

Contrast this with Star Trek Next Generation fans. I used to be a star trek fan, and if you had asked me then, I'd probably would have defined myself as pro-govt. It's a very pro-govt. show, STNG particularly. Other variations of trek have different political slants.

So, would the liberals here also have libertarian sympathies? Sure. Do the bulk of American liberals? No. Not ever close. Most liberals in America find the idea scary. They think it would erupt into bigotry and bias, and crackpots with guns and personal nukes. I talk to a lot of liberals, and I am very sure of this.

Some conservatives, possibly a majority, possibly not, but a smaller % than the % of liberals, here in America, feel the same way.

I have more to say on the subject, but this is SO not about walmart, that I'll start a new thread to do it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:41 PM

FLETCH2


Well I researched some English political sources that basically says that what we are talking about is the same thing.

Liberal, way back was an advocate of both personal freedom and social justice. The argument was that freedom to starve was no freedom at all and that you could have economic as well as political tyranny. I suspect this is a question of circumstances. When the UK industrialised it was free market capitalism with no restraints. At best we got industrial feudalism which at least meant that the companies did some things to help their workers, at worse was industrial indentured servitude, with systems like the butty system and scrip intended to milk the workforce as much as was practical. It would not be hard to see how economic control was as big a threat to liberty as political control.

So in the UK the liberal movement developed 2 threads, social liberalism essentially advocating that man was not free if he was economically controlled, and libertarianism that said that personal freedom was the more important of the two principles. Libertarianism itself had two threads, one that disliked central control and was allied with the collectivist and cooperative movements, and personal libertarians who didn't mind what government system was in place so long as it stayed out of their way.


In fact British libertarians were considered "of the left" as late as the early 20th century. They dropped out of sight because they were smeered as being Anarchists (if you dislike government structures you're an Anarchist right....?) So the name fell out of favour for many years. Today you have Libertarian wings in both political parties over here, those on on the left work to take down central authority and localise democracy, while those on the right favour personal lifestyle freedoms.

Several of my friends from back in the Young Conservative days called themselves libertarians, but UK conservatives are the party of centralised govenment so in this case "libitarian" meant pro free trade and pro personal freedom rather than being down on the central state.

The US small government (or "nightwatchmen" government) style libertarians never really did take off in the UK for much the same reason as it is a fringe movement here, both main parties are too heavily invested in keeping central control. However the libertarian fringes in teh Labour and Liberal parties did force through devolution, the returning of some powers from London to regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales and the election of new parliments there. As a group they still dislike european centralisation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:35 AM

DREAMTROVE


A curious historical accident mixed this sort of limited govt. libertarianism into our political right.

In the beginning there were 13 colonies, as you know, and in the interests of resisting English rule, the US was formed. But doing so involved a lot of compromise. The federation split into two political factions, federalists, who supported a moderate amount of federal control, which then was limited govt. but grew over time. The opposition was the anti-federalists who wanted to minimize federal control.

Anti-federalists were in a minority and couldn't win out in the first few elections, and federalism took over. Federalists split over the indian question, with Andrew Jackson and the Democrats breaking off as an anti-indian group. The remaining group was the national republican party, whose membership became the whigs, and then just the Republicans.

For the freedom loving libertarians, there was the wild west, and people with an anti-federalist streak were inclined to settle westward out of strict federal control.

As the focus of debate switched from indians to slavery, the large slave state populations of the south were the only pro-slavery contingent, and the rest of the country was pretty much anti-slavery as anyone who doesn't benefit from it would tend to be.

The democrats picked up the torch for the slave states, and the republicans took up the anti-slavery standard. The west, being anti-slavery tended towards republican.

But at this point the west was largely a political non-entity. In an effort to win the debate against the populous south, the northern republicans pushed for new states to be partitioned by size instead of population. They new that this would give them a majority in the Senate which would allow the abolition of slavery.

The South saw that it would lose the battle in control of what happened to western states, which were more closely tied to the north now by party, the slavery issue, and the origin of their population.

Most people don't see this as the instigator of the Civil war, but in the declarations of secession by the southern states it's very clear. They say it over and over and over again. They knew that within a few years the south would be completely marginalized in the Senate, and slavery would be banned. After the slavery issue was gone, they would still be marginalized, and who wants to be part of a union in which you're marginalized. Such was the argument they put forth also to their people.

So, the south seceded, thus removing any opposition to the partitioning of western states. This created a large number of new republican leaning senate seats with a decided libertarian bent.

Post-war, as the Democrats picked up the sort of pseudo-socialist govt. as equalizer and social justice plaque, and the GOP became pretty much the party of limited govt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:00 AM

FLETCH2


My view, which I fully expect you to disagree with, is that America moved profoundly to the left of British politics when it won it's Independence. The central tenets of the American Revolution have their basis on lot of what the British left would see as their ancestry. Like a said it was a progressive movement, a US conservative in 1776 would have been a loyalist.

What happened then I think was interesting. In the US there was a power vacuum, and while I agree with your analysis of the players I don't nescessarily agree who was who. Back at the time of the Civil War the Democrats were the party of the south and conservative, Republicans were the party of the Industrial north. I think that continued into the 1950's when the Dems went left and the conservative elements migrated to the Republican party. Reagan voted Democrat remember? He had that great quote "I never left the Democratic party -- they left me." If you look at a redstate/bluestate map of today it's pretty similar to the map from the 1930's except the colours have flipped. The Republican west is now that crazy liberal west coat....

Now in the UK things were different. Until the 1830's power was firmly with the Tory's then a party of rural land owners. This was not surprising since you had to own land to vote. Some large land owners just appointed MP's. As urbanisation increased so did two disenfrancised groups, the urban middle class and the industrial working class. The Liberal party came to represent both and so a complete spectrum of political thought existed within one movement. Through the reform acts the franchise was slowly and painfully extended and over time the Liberal parfty started to split into various factions as improved political freedom allowed smaller parties to exist.

There was no "West" for those unhappy with the government to move to. There was the Empire, and most of those that didn't like central authority went there. This probably explains the strong independent streak in most Australians. Those that stayed pretty much accepted the idea of a strong central state, and the apparatus to run an Empire was equally adept at running anything else. British life right or left was about order and the enforcement of order not nescessarily about liberty. If you don't like something you dont have the option of heading a few 1000 miles west until it got better or ceased to exist. You were forced to compromise.

I think that had an effect on what happned later in both nations. America has always had the idea of personal liberty and the space to express it. The UK has neither. So though America moved left compared to the UK of the 1770's it didn't really have the need to go any further that way. There was space enough and a political vacuum big enough that risk of conflict over all but the most pressing of matters could be avoided. In contrast forced to live with each other and divided by class Britain radicalised in every conceivable direction. Since maintainence of order was always paramount we moved left in fits and starts over the next 200 years, eventually passing the established US status quo until now you are to the right of where any of us are. You might find a Conservative willing to cut services to finance tax cuts but you wont find any that think that all in all Government was a bad idea. Most Conservatives believe that people and industry should stand on their own two feet but that doesn't mean that they plan to give up any economic controls. No Conservative believes freedom is more important than order.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 1:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch

You're right. I disagree. Australia was britain's equivalent of the west, sure. But there wasn't really a left/right swap. The GOP always meant business, at least since the beginning of the 20th c. and possibly always. The dems always meant govt. esp. since FDR.

Reagan was a democrat, and was still a democrat when he got elected as a republican president. He had to compromise with republicans, like gh. bush, but he was initially part of a big fight because his backers, the social dems, and the christian right, were not part of the traditional republican base.

If there was a shift, it was that the christian right became a republican, and black people became democrats. But there wasn't such a major policy flip flop of the parties themselves at the core.

Prior to WWI, the dems were heavy into govt. regulation and public service, social safety net, the republicans were very much pro-business, pro-family values or whatever, white picket fences and stuff. None of that changed.

If the infection of creationists and social militarism can't be purged from the GOP, I'll give up on it, but I don't think we're nearly there. If I had to give up on the GOP at some point, it would be towards a third party split back to what the GOP used to be like, such as something like the Reform Party, but not to the democrats.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:05 AM

DREAMTROVE



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:41 PM

SPACERACER


I really got a chuckle from some of the comments:

"Wal-Mart will have a sizeable hand in making Earth-that-was"....that's fully.

"They are categorically evil and un-American (spelled with a small a)"...that's twisted.

Someone put it the simplest. "If Wal-Mart is evil, then all corporations are evil." That's the question you have to ask, not just Wal-Mart. All corporation have the same primary goal...beat the competition, put them out of business." The truth is, and like it or not, that’s the cold hard reality of our society. I’ve tried two businesses and shut them both down for the same reason. I was spending more time working, and not enough with my family. Somebody claimed they were "breaking laws", well prove it or clam it. Trust me; there are enough eager DAs out there, in all 50 states that would love to further their careers by busting a Wal-Mart. I have this to thank Wal-Mart for. My 75 year old mother went to work for Wal-Mart about a decade ago, as of all things, a greeter. We've all heard the jokes about Wal-Mart greeters, but when they are directed at your mother it's hard to take. Anyway, she eventually moved to lawn and garden, and really enjoys it. Is she getting rich? Hell no! But that's not why she went their. She took a small cut in pay to get health benefits, which she did not have at her previous job (btw…that business is still there), and that decision paid off recently. My Mother was out of work for 6 months having a knee replaced. For the entire time she was off, Wal-Mart long term disability provided her with a paycheck. Thank God for Wal-Mart. If she were still at that paint business, she would have been SOL, cause not only would they have done nothing for her financially, she would lost her job. Wal-Mart took her back the day she was ready.

One more comment on the comments: "Kill it. Kill it soon and fast. Maybe torture it, send it to abu Ghraib." Now, wishing for the unemployment of 200,000 plus people, wishing that all of their suppliers and vendors loose that business, adding to the thousands of Americans already out of work...now that's evil.




Spaceracer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:50 PM

DREAMTROVE


Oh yes. I would gladly wish them out of work. If that's evil, well then I have one question, does evil take mastercharge?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:53 PM

FLETCH2


Mastercard is just another division of Evil Inc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:36 PM

DREAMTROVE


It was a buffy:faith quote

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 3:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceRacer:
Wal-Mart took her back the day she was ready.

As quick as I am to point out the 'evils' of a corporation, I am also glad to hear a positive story like this; Wal-Mart employs people, most of them good, and this is proof on the individual store level.

Thanks.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Police: Wal-Mart site raided

Quote:
About 125 arrested on immigration violations at Pennsylvania construction location. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A raid by federal, state and local authorities at a Wal-Mart Stores construction site in Pennsylvania netted about 125 arrests for alleged immigration violations.

Schuylkill County Capt. Dennis Kane confirmed the raid to CNN. USA Today reported that the workers were working on a million-square-foot distribution center in Butler Township, in eastern Pennsylvania.

Kane said immigrants who were arrested were taken to nearby Philadelphia. The county police worked in conjunction with Pennsylvania state police and federal immigration agents, he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/18/news/fortune500/walmart_raid/index.htm
?cnn=yes
This isn't the first time that Walmart has been cited for immigration violations, and not the first time that Walmart has broken labor laws.




---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:56 AM

VALDRON


On the subject of whether Wal-Mart is capitalist or socialist, I don't think it qualifies as capitalist any more.

Indeed, Wal-Mart is the beneficiary of direct government largesse at every level.

Consider, that when it opens its stores, it generally negotiates tax holidays, site servicing, land grants or leases with the local municipalities and governments.

Well, here's the thing. It costs money to set up a site for Wal Mart, to ensure that it is serviced with electricity, sewer and water connections, etc. These Big Box store locations are extremely expensive to municipalities in terms of servicing, simply because they suck up large amounts of square feet in empty locations and often have large but erratic consumption. So basically, every time one of these big box stores opens up, its costs are being subsidized by the homeowners and working people in the town, who are not being asked if they want to assume this burden. It's not pay as you go.

But it gets worse. Wal-Mart, using its 'brand' and often using pressure tactics and a variety of legal and extralegal bribes, often gets its land and services for free, and often negotiates tax holidays.

Which means that the local tax base is screwed further. Not only are tax payers subsidizing the whole of Wal-Mart's establishment, but they municipality is lacking the fair property taxes that Wal-Mart should have paid. Now, if other businesses had moved in, they would have paid taxes. Wal-Mart means that the town's budget shows a real loss. To make up that loss, two things happen, services and quality of services decline, and the tax burden gets heavy on those who have not negotiated sweetheart deals... ie, the average homeowner.

It gets worse of course, because Wal-Mart frequently wipes out local businesses who are tax payers. As they go down, the tax base actually declines, as Wal-Mart enjoys its free ride.

Wal-Mart has also proven very good at sucking up government money in various ways. Its estimated that each Wal-Mart store receives a half a million dollars a year in employee subsidies in one form or another. Half a million a year per store is not small change. Programs which were designed for the needy, the destitute, designed to help people turn their lives around, are being manipulated by Wal-Mart to improve its bottom line. By shoving its costs and employee expenses onto the government, rather than paying it themselves, Wal-Mart becomes a government subsidized operation.

Now, I'll ask you as a taxpayer, do you feel happy that your tax dollars are going towards subsidizing a giant corporation that gives its execs million dollar bonuses?

And of course, do you think that Chinese slave labour goods arrive magically on America's shores? No. Wal-Mart lobbies for labour laws and trade laws that serve its own interests, and spends a great deal of money to do it. Government acts for Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart acts for government. Only the working guy is screwed.

Now, reading quickly over this thread, I've noticed that some dicklover feels the need to disparage liberals and the left. Well, I'm a Canadian, I've worked all my life, I've paid mortgages, run my own business and worked for others, I've always paid my own way and I've helped people where I can. Let me say that the problem with American liberalism is that they lack guts, but that's a forgiveable sin. The problem with the American right is that they're a bunch of self-pitying, dishonest whiners who, as far as I can tell, don't know what real work is, and don't know what real values are. Now, I ain't really interested in making this a big grand political debate, I'm just setting out where I'm from.

So Wal-Mart make a lot of money? Good for them. Its easy to make a lot of money when you don't play by the rules, when you cheat and rob people. Ask any crack dealer.

The fact of the matter is that I expect any company to pay its fair share of taxes, I expect it to obey the law... Wal-Mart does neither.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 2:01 PM

FLETCH2


Should also be pointed out that lots of businesses get "sweetheart deals" from local government. I know someone commented elsewhere about the use of eminient domain law by some cities to buy people's homes and then sell the land to some business in a sweetheart deal. I think that's just plain wrong. IF the city needs land for public works, schools, roads etc it MAY have some rights to do that (which is why "fair compansation" is in the US Constitution) BUT improving your tax base is not a good enough excuse IMHO.

And what is it with sports teams? In the US sports francises are money making machines, why should cities and their tax payers foot the bill for building stadiums etc? Especially in cases like here in Dallas with the Rangers where the team gets to keep the building???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 5:24 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


These are all the definitions of socialism in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary. As you can see, oddly none of them apply to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is not an economic or political theory. It does not advocate state ownership or control of private property or the means of production. It was never even mentioned by Marx. It is not a 20th century English or German theory or totalitarianism. In fact, it is a complete misuse of the word to claim that Wal-Mart is socialist.

socialism n.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

guild socialism n.
: an early 20th century English socialistic theory advocating state ownership of industry with control and management by guilds of workers

national socialism n.
: NAZISM

state socialism n.
: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics introduced by usually gradual political action

utopian socialism n.
: socialism based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 6:27 PM

DREAMTROVE


Valdron,

Hear hear! Well put. Also, Walmart interferes in local politics to set up such a support system.

Too bad no one drowned it in the bathtub when it was still small.

Now things have definitely gotten out of hand. Captialist? Socialist? I don't know, this has hellmouth written all over it, I think perhaps we should consider sending a slayer after it now. Maybe two. Faith tactics might just be the order of the day.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 7:20 PM

VALDRON


Got a camera?

Great. Here's me giving a rat's ass for half baked dictionary definitions of socialism.

Wal-Mart and its ilk is the oldest kind of socialism, which is the socialism that involves
the rich and powerful manipulating the system to enrich themselves further. Specifically, by getting the rest of us saps to subsidize them or just transfer our tax money directly to them.

If you want a name for it, call it corporate socialism.

As for my creed, I subscribe to the cause of common sense, which sadly enough, ain't all that common.

As for Wal-Mart, I imagine that it'll eventually go the way these sorts of critters always do. It'll load up on debt, buying everyone and everything in sight, then it'll make a bunch of bad management decision, then after its well and truly wrecked and polluted the landscape, it'll have a crisis, hold its shoppers and employees hostage and demand that government bail it out.

Worked for General Motors, didn't work for Enron, and won't work for anyone in the long run.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL