There, there Smrt you'll feel much better after a little raw meat and getting your attitude changed.
Hightower - "Liberally dusting" - isn't that what you attempt to do. It seems you mold a bunch of inferior parts in an effort to make your column appear to be a more superior cut.
Don't you think you should preface each article with "reformed and glued"?
"Apparently a skunk doesn't smell its own stink - or at least its not offended by it."
No kidding Jimmie. I presume this is how you live with yourself.
I believe I heard a justification for the act when the story was first reported, but if I did, I forgot it. Probably something about having a level playing field for all American companies, but I do not know if any other nations, particularly European nations, have similar legislation. If not then the act puts all American companies at a disadvantage relative to those other nations, and just as taking bribes is part of many third world cultures, the handing out of bribes is part of the culture of many advanced industrial cultures.
Maybe the US government should be paying out the bribes to Mexico with the proviso that they give the advantage to all American companies equally, and not favor Wal-Mart! (Don't get bent out of shape. It's just a joke.)
Bribery in Mexico is a way of life. Therefore I would caution against passing (too much) judgement looking at it from the US perspective. Now, in the USA it seems it is the other way around. Local governments effectively bribe companies to entice them into their environs.
As to the "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act", I know nothing about it other than it was drafted by politicians. Consequently, I am more than a bit skeptical.
smartestman, you have addressed only the side issues. How do you feel about the bribery and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
Jimmy, it is obvious that you have never met a capitalistic institution that you like.
In your warped world, price negotiation ("squeezing suppliers") is bad because everyone should get whatever they ask; competition ("crushing competitors") is bad since it might lead to hurt feelings; and not caving to unions ("exploiting employees") is bad because you are a communist and a union sympathizer.
C - so you believe you, cranky and sniff constitute the rest of the world?
smartestman, when will you learn that your vituperative attacks only serve to confirm to the rest of the world that you have no intellectual ammunition and you are not too proud to sling mud when you run out of ideas.
Cranky, Mr. c and sniff - the three little pigs. The way you huff and puff and blow, one might confuse you with the big bad wolf (albeit, without any teeth).
One more thing about these dirty schemes, the taxpayer also gets to eat the pension costs of the workers via the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).
When the corporate raiders grab a firm, they not only raid the assets, they plunder the pension fund too. They then let the empty dead shell of a firm file for bankruptcy and dissolution.
A Federal entity, the PBGC assumes the obligations owed to workers, whose pension is usually about a third of what they should've gotten.
Private equity types are swell guys, and if we give Mitt the chance, he'll finish the job Bush started of destroying the country.
This article elucidates why Mitt Romney, noted political chameleon, never changed his position on the auto bail out, even in the face of its overwhelming success. The entirety of his business experience and acumen tells him that Bain Capital could have made a killing by acquiring GM dirt cheap, selling off its many valuable capital assets, (probably to Japanese companies), and decimating the auto workers union. As a current stock holder in Bain Capital, Mitt Romney ought to recuse himself from making any comment whatsoever about the auto bail out, because he has a vested interest in its failure.
dumbarseman, you have to stop listening to faux news and limp balls...facts don't matter to them. GE has dontated to both parties almost equally for decades. i see mint rawmoney is their top recipient lately...so are you for or against changing the tax system?? Obama is all for it.
Let me see, didn't I just read that your buddies at GE (a huge Obama supporter) doesn't pay any corporate income tax? Is that who you are taking about Jimmie?
Interesting new development: today John Huntsman characterized the Republican Party as acting like the Chinese Communist Party. Apparently, it's the conservatives, like Alan West himself, not the progressives, who are the subversives in Congress.
No, smartestman, I am sure I was speaking of communists, although it does apply equally as well to fascists, nazis, some, but not all, socialists, and finally some, but not all, anarchists, at least in theory. Whereas communists, fascists, and nazis have a successful track record when it comes to overthrowing established governments, anarchists never even tried.
The only instance in the history of the world, of anarchists holding and exercising political power, occurred in 1936 Spain, but these anarchists were elected to public office by the popular vote. The democratically elected government of Spain was subsequently overthrown by the fascist dictator Generalissimo Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.
Mr C: you are so full of crap. I believe you have communist mixed up with anarchist.
You really do believe yourself knowledgeable, don't you? Her is a clue - YOU ARE NOT.
What is it like to be self-deluded?
Since so many people do not understand the difference between liberalism and coummunism, due to years of being spoon-fed anti-communist propaganda, I will try to explain it concisely.
smartestman seeks to label Jim Hightower as a communist mainly because Hightower advocates for more, and more effective, government regulation of the more rapacious aspects of our economic system. We all know the conservative arguments against government regulation, but I think many will be surprised to know that communism is against government regulation in a capitalist economy. To ask a capitalist government to regulate its own abuses is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The purpose of a capitalist government (from the communist point of view) is to keep the foxes from killing each other over the hens, but it is not there to protect the hens from the foxes.
A true communist does not advocate for more regulation in liberal newspapers. A true communist advocates for revolutionary overthrow of the government. (Which, by the way, is why true communists are opposed to gun control, as well. In fact, communism has much more in common with right-wing extremism than most people realize.) But I digress.
To finish off my original line of thought, communists advocate for revolution, and the case is easier to make when there are no regulations to protect the average citizen. After the revolution, when the government is no longer capitalist, but communist, *then* they will start advocating for more government regulation.
smartestman, Woody Guthrie is one of the most admired men in American history, in spite of his association with the Communist Party, which is why that association is often soft-pedaled by progressives. They are afraid the truth might inspire some of our young rebels, such as the 99%-ers, to emulate their hero and take a closer look at communism.
Mr. Hightower, although a progressive, is adamantly anti-communist, and cannot bring himself to believe that his hero was tainted by his association with the party. Being a progressive, Hightower must often be labeled a communist, as your comment amply illustrates. It is not a very far leap for him to assume that Woody Guthrie was similarly maligned by right-wing hyperbole.
He (West) deserves the ridicule he's getting.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation