davidk14: Bill White has a number of accomplishments under his belt. However, he is an open border advocate. He doesn’t believe in securing the border even with the factual evidence of the incredible violence, human smuggling, and drug traffic occurring on the Texas / Mexican border. He has stated that he does not and would not enforce Federal Laws regarding illegal immigration.

As the Mayor of Houston, a “sanctuary city”, White did not support or arrest any illegal aliens for being in the US illegally yet the illegals receive free health, education, city and county services that law abiding legal citizens are paying for. Many business people that follow the minimum wage laws are complaining that many businesses are underpaying illegal aliens causing an uneven playing field.

It is a fact that the Democratic Party wants the Hispanic vote and won’t do anything to endanger their voting bloc especially now that the Democrats are going to lose numerous congress and senate seats in November.

Again, Bill White does have a number of accomplishments under his belt. However, he is an open border advocate.

LiptonCambell: >>>solution? a good start would be to eradicate theives and corruption.

Like I was telling jack earlier, the devil is in the details- clearly our conflict comes when we try and identify what is courrption, and what deserves to be punished.

>>>what would the founding fathers do? there seems to be a solution.

The founding fathers aren't much help, honestly- they fought and bickered just as much as our current leaders.....even when it came to revolution, many founding fathers opposed it....

>>>Alex Jones keeps mentioning Ron Paul on his Radio Show because Ron Paul lives in Texas and is a right wing fanatic like Jones.

The word you want is "Libertarian", not right wing. Its no wonder you think Flash is contradicting Ron Paul- you don't even understand his politics, and are more comfortable slotting him in a political idealogy he's not necessarily a part of.

Basically, you're looking at left and right politics- but the simple left-right divide does a very poor job of describing peoples politics. The best way to look at it is as a compass rather than a line- theres the leftist, which supports communial ecconmic policy(welfare, regulation ect) and cultural individualism(gay rights, ect), and the right wing, which supports ecconmic individualism(free market, ect) and communial culture(nationalism and patriotism, ect)- and then theres 3 more "wings"- individualist/libertarian, which focuses exclusively on individual rights for both ecconmic and cultural issues, communuial/authoritarian, which focus's exclusively on commuial rights for both eccomic and cultural issues- and lastly, of course, the center.

So there is absolutely a reason behind Mr.Pauls beliefs- he's a libertarian leaning to the right wing, supporting the reduction of government power(individual ecconmic freedom), and cultural rights(individual cultural freedom)

Just thought I'd try and make that clear, since I keep finding people who only think theres left or right.

davidk14: Lipton, I beleive 15% of Americans are on the hard left and 15% of Americans are on the hard right. 50% are in the middle and the rest just dont care.

chronology: Mr David. You seem to have accurately described your fellow countrymen (and women) well with regard to their attitude to politics. Most Americans I have met have little interest in politics. However Americans did win the admiration of many political observers for their last election. The American public turned out in large numbers, and their political debates were informed and spirited. You were all a credit to your country, and a fine example of how democracy should work.

Outbackjack: David I dont see anything about the word Socialist being used to describe Democracy.Far easier to shoot the messenger when you dont like the message and rabidly go on about Socialist/Communist conspiracies Claude Robichaux style.

"Not at all- the concept of the free market is for individuals to exchage goods and services with no interference from outside parties, government or otherwise. The fact that the Government DID interfere, in this case by bailing out certain companies from bankruptcy, proves that this instance we are discussing is not at all free market.

As you said several times, this is a example of redistribution of wealth gone wrong- that the government is taking tax dollars and redistributing it to corporations. How is it this is an example of the free market failing, because people enacted socialist ways? Isn't it an example of socialist ways failing?"

There was no interference in the "market".Thats why we actually had the global financial crisis of 2008.We were told about how great the free market was and how the market would work itself out.
Its quite pathetic for you to infer that this wasnt free trade because right up to 2008 it was a "free for all" with little regulation.

I will give a two year old newsflash McLipton.
THE FREE MARKET FAILED!!
The 2008 financial crisis is the best example of this.
It is as plain as the Pinnochio shaped nose growing from your face.

Example of Socialist ways failing and proves that this wasnt a free market???

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Are you for real???????

There would be no market left let alone a free one if OUR taxpayer dollars didnt bail out you parasites.


"No, I think "what do you think should be done about this?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask at this juncture."

How many times do I have to explain.Are you really that dense?


"Why do you? You certainly have more money than the billions of starving people out there- but you purchase luxeries, such as computers and internet access- why? Couldn't you do with less? Shouldn't you? And since you clearly are not, then who are you to dictate how others should live, if you are not willing to live at that standard?"

HA HA HA HA HA!!!
You are entertaining tonight arent you McLipton.

Lets see,compared to most people in the Western world I do not have running water,mains electricity,postal services,telephone lines,natural gas connection,garbage collectors,medical services nearby.
So yes.
I AM MAKING SACRIFICES.
I could go on as there are many more.

But this isnt about me.Me who is struggling in a semi desert landscape scratching away at the earth in one of the most inhospitable parts of our earth.

No.
This is about the corporate fatcats who get trillions of dollars in OUR taxpayer dollars for their incompetence and theft ahead of a billion starving people.

So I will repeat the question.
Why do the richest people on earth need OUR money ahead of a billion starving?
It is OUR money afterall.


"A strawman argument, as Wikipedia wonderfully explains;

"s an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man", and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"

What a weak excuse.
Chicken shit.

Outbackjack: "Show me where I suggested that banks should be bailed out? I made it clear that I don't think they should be."

So what do you suggest should have happened regarding the GFC of 2008?

"That sitatuion? No. But you certainly do wish to punish numerous companies for not acting in ways that, while are completely legal, you feel should be punished."

So you dont agree with being responsible for your actions even if you dont legally have to do so?

"Its not my place to dictate how foriegn governments are run- nor is it yours, nor is it these corportations. You can't take on the world jack"

So what do you suggest?
Maybe I could sit back and open another pack of potato chips and mindlessly consume more products from our benevolent corporations and think happy happy thoughts?

It is everyones responsibility to stand up and say when things are wrong.
It is our responsibilty to tell corrupt governments/corporations when they are wrong.It has been done before in South Africa,Germany and many other countries.

The campaigns to end slavery,equality of the sexes,right to vote,right to unionise,the end of serfdom and many many more all came about by people who stood up for what is right.

I personally took part in the Nike campaign to stop sweatshop labour.That was successful.So dont tell me what can or cant be done McLipton.

"Couldn't I stop both these corporations and these countries by simply boycotting these products? We all have that power to make that choice- but you want the power to make that choice for people. Why? Isn't that elitism?"

Boycotts dont always work.
Like I said before.
If someone breaks into my house and steals my property I can call the police.
Who can the people of Africa call when their property is stolen?


"You completely dodged my first point; if you penalize these corporations for doing business with these countries, our governments will certainly take their share of this penalization. Again, the devil is in the details- how do you propose giving this money "back" to the people of these countries? I'm certain their "pseudo fascist tinpot dictators" have no problem pocketing any money thats sent their way either......so what is your solution?"

Some countries like Sudan,Burma and Tibet require international assistance to safeguard the people of the country rather than wasting trillions on wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.The U.N has a role here.

The first thing that could be done would be to take away farm subsidies that help Western countries.This would make things more equal for third world farmers so they could diversify and grow crops that would be worth more.

What has gone on with a lot of countries in South America and Africa was a lot of the farmers were encouraged to grow the same product.When many farmers got involved then obviously the price of these products decreased and the corporations were then able to buy these up at bargain prices at the expense of the poor farmers.

Also we need to hold these corporations to account about how their practices affect people.

How about a charge for involuntary manslaughter when these corporations contribute to the starvation of many?

"clearly our conflict comes when we try and identify what is courrption, and what deserves to be punished."

All the corrupt fatcats that put their hands in the till for OUR money.


"Everyone catch that? I accept that I cannot control foreign nations, and for that, I support dictators. Jack actively calls for government and ecconmic reform, and yet, he isn't. Gotta love double speak. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Get this.
You support the free trade parasites who actively support tin pot dictators.

How about denouncing them rather than promoting them?

davidk14: Outback said: Let’s see, compared to most people in the Western world I do not have running water, mains electricity, postal services, telephone lines, natural gas connection, garbage collectors, medical services nearby. So yes. I AM MAKING SACRIFICES. I could go on as there are many more. But this isn’t about me. Me who is struggling in a semi desert landscape scratching away at the earth in one of the most inhospitable parts of our earth.


David Says: Using your situation, with no disrespect, do you expect a bailout because of your living conditions? Of course not. Do you expect other people in your situation (lack of running water, main electricity, postal service, telephones, natural gas, garbage collection, and medical services) should get a bailout?


Outback said: It is everyone’s responsibility to stand up and say when things are wrong.
It is our responsibility to tell corrupt governments/corporations when they are wrong. It has been done before in South Africa, Germany and many other countries.


David Says: Since man has been on this planet, there have been corrupt governments and corporations. I agree, it IS our responsibility to tell corrupt governments and corporations when they are wrong, and when identified, criminal complaints should be filed. However, there are billions of people doing the right and moral thing. The majority of businesses are doing the right and moral thing. The challenge is, should those that do the right and moral thing, be forcibly told (through taxation) to donate portions of their hard earned money or profits to people or governments that are not as well off in the name of “social justice” or as some call it “redistribution of wealth”?

davidk14: Here’s an example:

There are five companies making the “exact same chair”. Each of these five companies is competing to have the lowest sale price for you to buy the most inexpensive chair. Each of these companies needs to control their labor, material, and overhead costs so as to have a positive bottom line. These five companies are competing for your business. You the consumer will purchase the chair from the company that the best quality with the lowest price. Very simplistically, this is called a free market economy.

Now, there are those that say that these companies that are doing the right and moral thing and have a positive bottom line which might be very small, they should forcibly through taxation to contribute funds to “social justice” of the world?

• In the United States, small business is already paying moderate to heavy taxes and with the Bush tax cuts terminating on 12/31/2010, these five companies are going to have to raise the cost of that chair just to stay in business. This chair will now cost you 10% or more to purchase.
• With the new Health Care, add another 15% to the cost of the chair.
• With the new “Wall Street” laws, add another 10%
• With the new Energy Taxes, add another 15%. The farmer here is going to get hammered driving him out of business. Who’s going to grow food then?

This issue will just cascade throughout the American landscape. With these new “social justice” initiatives, the chair will now cost approximately 50% more. Now, are you going to even buy that chair?
• The estate tax is going from 0.00% this year to 55.0% next year.


The US already has huge social programs that help the less fortuante which consumes 50% percent of all taxation. Further taxation to support new huge "social justice" programs using the cover of "redistribution of wealth" are just going to bring this economy to a standstill and any money that Americans that are already being taxed for social programs to the less fortunate are going to dry up. Then where will the less fortunate be?


.

LiptonCambell: >>>There was no interference in the "market".

What? "NO" interference? Were you drunk when you wrote that? Anytime theres a law passed that taxes businesses, regulates businesses, bails out or subsidizes businesses, shows preferencial treatment for one business over another, or makes certain products illegal to sell to protect people from mutual trade and benefit- thats interference. And our lawbooks are riddled with such things- all in the misguided attempt to make things "fair"

You claiming there is no interference in the market truly shows that you have no idea what the hell it is you're talking about.

>>>Thats why we actually had the global financial crisis of 2008.We were told about how great the free market was and how the market would work itself out.

You're saying the market won't? I'm quite certain that its capable of resolving its issues, once government stops interfering and stops using tax dollars to protect businesses that make products no one buys.

>>>Its quite pathetic for you to infer that this wasnt free trade because right up to 2008 it was a "free for all" with little regulation.

Ha! You may believe that there needs to be more regulation, but that doesn't mean theres "little regulation" in existence- theres plenty. The only real thing that I've seen is, as regulation goes up, personal earnings go down. So its little wonder that, as more and more regulation is applied, more and more people go into bankruptcy.

>>>THE FREE MARKET FAILED!!

What happened in 2008 was not the free market.

Do you even understand what "free market" means? Or does the concept of allowing people to make their own choices in life such a turn off for you that you refuse to consider it?

Why do you consider yourself the only person capible of making their own choices?

>>>There would be no market left let alone a free one if OUR taxpayer dollars didnt bail out you parasites.

Huh? Wait- does that mean what I think it means? Are you actually saying that the bail out was required?

>>>How many times do I have to explain

Just once. But you haven't. Instead, you've used this time to soapbox against all the problems with the world, without offering a solution.

>>>I AM MAKING SACRIFICES.

Zippity doo. But for all the sacrifices you are making, you still have time to spend causually and comfortably chatting online. Billions of starving people do not have this freedom- and you cry out against others for embracing luxeries while these people exist- but you don't think that you should have to lower yourself to the level you are DEMANDING others do- because they have more than you do. Do you think, to a starving person, that it matters to them that you refuse to take the stances you demand of others, cause they won't first? Admit it- so long as you have luxeries such as computers and hydro, to a starving person, you are equal to the man who have luxeries such as a foreign car and a mansion. You proudly announce yourself superior to all, but you're not.

As for your "sacrafices", one wonders- could everyone make the same kind of sacrifices you make? After all, the majority of the world live in urban centers- they can't afford land to grow their own food, or the space required to produce their own electricity off the grid. People need plumbing and garbage collection and nearby medical services. So while your situation certainly works for you, it won't work for the majority of people. Not that it stops you from hubrisly announcing that people who don't are somehow lesser.

Admit it- all your sacrifices are not for the great good, but rather, for your own ego.

And I truly wonder- you don't have a phone connection? Then how are you online?

LiptonCambell: >>>Me who is struggling in a semi desert landscape scratching away at the earth in one of the most inhospitable parts of our earth.

Awww- your so bravely enduring such trials- you need a hug? Again, you keep calling for others to step up and help others- but it seems you're only working to help yourself. If you were truly interested in helping others, you would go to these countries to help the homeless, the orphaned, the sick and the feebled. But you're not. You instead cut yourself off from the "fatcats" and claim that you are saving the world by doing so, while criticizing others for not doing what you yourself are not willing to do.

>>>This is about the corporate fatcats who get trillions of dollars in OUR taxpayer dollars for their incompetence and theft ahead of a billion starving people.

Weren't you just saying eariler how those bail outs were necessary to save the market? And again, a solution for this would be....

Oh, thats right. You haven't stated one. Well, so long as you announce the guilty party, you don't really have to have a solution eh?

>>>Why do the richest people on earth need OUR money ahead of a billion starving?

They don't. I've said, several times, they should not have been bailed out, and they should not have been given that money. But you aren't talking about bailouts- you're talking about "rescuing" these businesses profits and redistributing them to people you feel are worthy of it. Stop misrepresenting your position, and stop assuming my position when I clearly do not support what you claim I do.

>>>What a weak excuse.

Weak excuse? I keep telling you I do not support bail outs- and you keep bringing it up as if I do, and as if it is a weak point of my argument. You ARE presenting a strawman argument, because at no point have I supported what you are claiming I support- you are making shit up, then making it seem like you're "winning" the debate for it.

>>>So what do you suggest should have happened regarding the GFC of 2008?

Those businesses should have been allowed to fail- the "bail outs" should have gone to refund the people who invested in the banks, and new, better run businesses should have taken their place over time.

>>>So you dont agree with being responsible for your actions even if you dont legally have to do so?

I'm saying you're perverting the word "responsible" to suit your political idealogy- to punish people who do not agree with it. That you are calling for people to be "responsible" for imaginary crimes

What do you propose to be done with these businesses? How should they be held responsible? These questions must be answered before I can make a stance, because you have no made your overall goal clear.

>>>So what do you suggest?

Move to these countries and help change their minds and ways. Would you be happy if the United States forced your government to change their policies, because they feel the Austrillian citizens are stupid? Then why do you think its acceptable to treat others this way?

>>>The campaigns to end slavery,equality of the sexes,right to vote,right to unionise,the end of serfdom and many many more all came about by people who stood up for what is right.

And how were these changes made? By influencing the people of that country to better understand things? Or by announcing that they are stupid, they have no right to self-determination, and that you will force them to change if necessary? Did slavery end in America because it offended France? Were women given the vote in Japan because Russia found it cruel? Or was it actual changes to the thoughts and opinions of the people actually living in these countries?

>>>I personally took part in the Nike campaign to stop sweatshop labour.That was successful

Right you are- now no one uses sweatshop labour.

Oh wait......

LiptonCambell: >>>So dont tell me what can or cant be done McLipton.

I'm not saying it can't be done- I'm saying its immoral to force your ideals onto others.

>>>Boycotts dont always work.

And why don't they always work Jack? Could it be because not everyone agrees with you? And yet you try and force others to do as you say anyways? Wow- that sounds like the elitism I mentioned....

>>>Who can the people of Africa call when their property is stolen?

And if not everyone agrees it is theft, including the people of Africa?

>>>This would make things more equal for third world farmers so they could diversify and grow crops that would be worth more.

Wow! An actual solution! Way to go Jack! It took weeks, but I knew you could stop b&@#$^y$ about others while offering no solutions!

Still, that would make millions of western farmers to go out of business, and force these nations to actually be more dependant, not less, on foreign nations. Also, the cost of food would skyrocket, because of less subside, and more imports(which Im sure the increase in importing would work wonders for the enviroment)- causing millions more to starve.

How does creating more poverty and increasing the cost of food help people?

>>>What has gone on with a lot of countries in South America and Africa was a lot of the farmers were encouraged to grow the same product.

Define "encourage"

>>>When many farmers got involved then obviously the price of these products decreased and the corporations were then able to buy these up at bargain prices at the expense of the poor farmers.

Thats an inherit issue with investing- when you invest, you run the risk of not getting as much as you put in. Alot of people I know went to school for elaborate jobs- now they work at donut shops and clothing stores. They invested, and they got burned. Its natural, and a world cannot exist where everyone who invests pays out big.

>>>How about a charge for involuntary manslaughter when these corporations contribute to the starvation of many?

And if its not that simple? What if the countries, who, in your own words, are courrpt already, also played a huge role in it? Are you proposing companies pay for their employees in that country, or just everyone who exists in that country?

>>>All the corrupt fatcats that put their hands in the till for OUR money.

So lets play make belief then! Say we reverse time, and the "fatcats" didnt receieve any bailout money; would your critisms remain unchanged? Of course they wouldn't. Its not about them receieving bailouts as much as them being "fatcats"

So when I say we are in conflict on what actions need to be punished, and you say "asking and recieving bailouts need is what I believe needs to be punished"- its misleading- because you would still be asking for them to be punished with or without bailouts.

So you're simply misrepresenting your position.

>>>How about denouncing them rather than promoting them?

Who? Dictators? I have no problem doing that. But then again, isn't that what I'm doing right now? If you had your way, you certainly would gladly be dictating how people should and should not live.

Outbackjack: Are you drunk?

That was the big problem.There was no interference hence the GFC of 2008.
Laissez faire,carte blanche whatever you want to call it.

"You're saying the market won't? I'm quite certain that its capable of resolving its issues, once government stops interfering and stops using tax dollars to protect businesses that make products no one buys."

Capable of resolving its issues are you for real??
Do you just rabbit off some kind of pre-prepared s***** or something.

If the government hadnt been forced to step in there would be no market and we would be in the middle of a depression that makes the 1930s look like a tea party.

FACT!

"Ha! You may believe that there needs to be more regulation, but that doesn't mean theres "little regulation" in existence- theres plenty. The only real thing that I've seen is, as regulation goes up, personal earnings go down. So its little wonder that, as more and more regulation is applied, more and more people go into bankruptcy."

What a load of Bullshit!

Because there was no regulation bankruptcies skyrocketed.Homes,banks,financial institutions.

The fact that you have the gall to vomit this kind of verbal diahorrea is truly breathtaking!

"Do you even understand what "free market" means? Or does the concept of allowing people to make their own choices in life such a turn off for you that you refuse to consider it?"

Free for all is what it was.
So now you claim it wasnt a free market.
They made their own choices and failed abysmally McLipton.
I would dread to see what it would be like if you had a say.
Anarcho Capitalism.

"Huh? Wait- does that mean what I think it means? Are you actually saying that the bail out was required?"

To avoid a depression worse than the 1930s something had to be done.
It could have been done a lot better.
Instead of handouts they should have gone in and jailed the incompetents.Then they should have nationalised the lot with our taxpayer money so at least we would have a return on our money.Then put the corporations/banks up for sale and sell at a profit,if possible.
But keep all essential services.

Regulation then needs to be put in place to ensure this never happens.We did it here in the 1990s and none of our local banks failed.We also were the only OECD country not to fall into recession.
Regulation of the banks worked here and the fact they are still standing speaks volumes rather than your heavily discredited "free trade."

You seem so critical and insist on answers from me yet have very little to contribute yourself.You disagree with bailouts so what would you have done?

Let everything fall into a heap?

"Just once. But you haven't. Instead, you've used this time to soapbox against all the problems with the world, without offering a solution."

HA HA HA HA!!
Pot,kettle,black.


"Zippity doo. But for all the sacrifices you are making, you still have time to spend causually and comfortably chatting online. Billions of starving people do not have this freedom- and you cry out against others for embracing luxeries while these people exist- but you don't think that you should have to lower yourself to the level you are DEMANDING others do- because they have more than you do. Do you think, to a starving person, that it matters to them that you refuse to take the stances you demand of others, cause they won't first? Admit it- so long as you have luxeries such as computers and hydro, to a starving person, you are equal to the man who have luxeries such as a foreign car and a mansion. You proudly announce yourself superior to all, but you're not."

You say I stand on a soapbox???
Sheeesh.
How many billions of dollars do these super rich want.
It is illogical that they sit on a massive amount of resources whilst others have nothing.Yes I do cry out about the super rich having a stupid amount of luxury.Yet you are ready to argue this point by being a poodle/stooge and kissing the super rich's arse.

Outbackjack: "As for your "sacrafices", one wonders- could everyone make the same kind of sacrifices you make? After all, the majority of the world live in urban centers- they can't afford land to grow their own food, or the space required to produce their own electricity off the grid. People need plumbing and garbage collection and nearby medical services. So while your situation certainly works for you, it won't work for the majority of people. Not that it stops you from hubrisly announcing that people who don't are somehow lesser."

Well you asked.
I dont consider what I do as a sacrifice.I live here because I want to do and not have the banks owning me.Not everyone could do this but land is still very cheap out here and possible for most people to do.Ego has nothing to do with it pal.

Where do I announce that people are lesser for not doing this????
Still making things up?

I dont have a phone connection.
I get internet through my mobile phone(when it works) and I plug this into my computer.$10 for 100mb.

"Awww- your so bravely enduring such trials- you need a hug? Again, you keep calling for others to step up and help others- but it seems you're only working to help yourself. If you were truly interested in helping others, you would go to these countries to help the homeless, the orphaned, the sick and the feebled. But you're not. You instead cut yourself off from the "fatcats" and claim that you are saving the world by doing so, while criticizing others for not doing what you yourself are not willing to do."

Again you asked McLipton.To bad if you dont like the answer.
I am working to help my family and provide for them the best way I can.
I want the fatcats to stop exploiting the Third world.

You say I should go to these countries and help them?
How?
You see McLipton I wasnt born with a silver spoon in my mouth like you.I cant just ring up daddy and ask for money whenever it tickles my fancy.I do my bit in other ways when I can.

BTW I dont want a hug from you.
Being a rabid Capitalist you may consume me.


"They don't. I've said, several times, they should not have been bailed out, and they should not have been given that money. But you aren't talking about bailouts- you're talking about "rescuing" these businesses profits and redistributing them to people you feel are worthy of it. Stop misrepresenting your position, and stop assuming my position when I clearly do not support what you claim I do."

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

But you have NO position.
You just sit on the fence whilst waxing lyrical.

"Weak excuse? I keep telling you I do not support bail outs- and you keep bringing it up as if I do, and as if it is a weak point of my argument. You ARE presenting a strawman argument, because at no point have I supported what you are claiming I support- you are making shit up, then making it seem like you're "winning" the debate for it."

Debate???
Is that what you call this?
You are getting killed.

"Those businesses should have been allowed to fail- the "bail outs" should have gone to refund the people who invested in the banks, and new, better run businesses should have taken their place over time."

Ahhh so you have some kind of solution,kind of.

What about all that debt McLipton??
What about the flow on effect to other businesses/individuals who had done everything right but were owed money?

Where would these "new,better run businesses" materialised from?
Out of thin air?
There would have been no money from the banks to finance them as they wouldnt exist if your solution had been put in place.

The share market would have collapsed.
Mass unemployment would have happened.
Then consumers would no longer be able to afford the goods these "new businesses" produced.

Outbackjack: You really are showing how little you know about the market.
I mean here I am a Construction worker from the bush teaching you basic economics???????

"I'm saying you're perverting the word "responsible" to suit your political idealogy- to punish people who do not agree with it. That you are calling for people to be "responsible" for imaginary crimes"

You are just making things up now.
I have never said anything like that.
Its the people with their snouts in the trough that I take issue with.

"What do you propose to be done with these businesses? How should they be held responsible? These questions must be answered before I can make a stance, because you have no made your overall goal clear"

I have stated before and above what I think should be done with these businesses.

"Move to these countries and help change their minds and ways. Would you be happy if the United States forced your government to change their policies, because they feel the Austrillian citizens are stupid? Then why do you think its acceptable to treat others this way?"

Are you going to ask your daddy for some airfare money for me,McLipton.

Its funny that you state the U.S telling Australia because that is exactly what they tell us to do through the WTO.
They tell us we must have free trade(Australia is one of the biggest free trade countries in the world).Yet they subsidise their farmers.Steal our wheat market in Iraq(thanks for helping with the invasion),deny access to the American market of our steel and other building products.Tariffs.
Shall I continue?
Oh right McLipton,great example.

"And how were these changes made? By influencing the people of that country to better understand things? Or by announcing that they are stupid, they have no right to self-determination, and that you will force them to change if necessary? Did slavery end in America because it offended France? Were women given the vote in Japan because Russia found it cruel? Or was it actual changes to the thoughts and opinions of the people actually living in these countries?"

That statement is that idiotic that it doesnt even deserve a response.

"Right you are- now no one uses sweatshop labour.

Oh wait...... "

I actually agree.
There are other offenders.

"And why don't they always work Jack? Could it be because not everyone agrees with you? And yet you try and force others to do as you say anyways? Wow- that sounds like the elitism I mentioned...."

Why dont they work?
Well for starters in Australia it is illegal to encourage a secondary boycott.
So yes its against the law and you can be jailed.

"And if not everyone agrees it is theft, including the people of Africa?"

Ifs,whats,maybes.
Theft is theft no matter how you sugarcoat it.

"Still, that would make millions of western farmers to go out of business, and force these nations to actually be more dependant, not less, on foreign nations. Also, the cost of food would skyrocket, because of less subside, and more imports(which Im sure the increase in importing would work wonders for the enviroment)- causing millions more to starve."

The price of food would rise in some instances.
Western farmers would have to diversify.Carbon credits would be a viable alternative.There would be less money in farming,thats all.
Australian farmers have done well with no subsidies and poor soil.
Third world farmers are already over reliant on Foreign income.
At least this way there would be more wealth in these countries and this would flow on creating less poverty and not more.

Outbackjack: "Define "encourage""

A company would offer to buy a certain produce if farmers grew it.Think Coffee in South America.Initially there would be a high price for the product until everyone started producing it.The company then swoops in buys the over supplied product at a heavy discount.

"And if its not that simple? What if the countries, who, in your own words, are courrpt already, also played a huge role in it? Are you proposing companies pay for their employees in that country, or just everyone who exists in that country?"

It is not that simple I agree.
For starters the Hague needs to be taking more action against these dictators who violate human rights.
Corporations and individuals should be held to account to.

"So lets play make belief then! Say we reverse time, and the "fatcats" didnt receieve any bailout money; would your critisms remain unchanged? Of course they wouldn't. Its not about them receieving bailouts as much as them being "fatcats"

So when I say we are in conflict on what actions need to be punished, and you say "asking and recieving bailouts need is what I believe needs to be punished"- its misleading- because you would still be asking for them to be punished with or without bailouts.

So you're simply misrepresenting your position."

It is you who is misrepresenting my position.
A Fatcat is a greedy rich person who has their snout in the trough.
If they have need of a bailout then they are incompetent and need to be punished.

So stop making up crap that we should just punish everyone who wears a suit.
Its pathetic and reeks of desperation.

"Who? Dictators? I have no problem doing that. But then again, isn't that what I'm doing right now? If you had your way, you certainly would gladly be dictating how people should and should not live."

You are making things up again McLipton.
Here I will show you my original phrase just so you cant twist it or pretend I said something else:

You support the free trade parasites who actively support tin pot dictators.

You arent denouncing them you are promoting them.

If you were denouncing them then you would denounce McDonalds for dealing with the dictators in Brazil in the 1960s-70s?

I wont hold my breath waiting for that.

flashie: chrono/ i say vote ron paul because he's the only politician in america ive heard good things about.

how do you come to the conclusion paul or jones are right wing?

franklin1950: in the u.s. " cap and trade" bill has yet to be passed . a big bone for unions .

chronology: Carte Goodwin. U.S. Politician Carte Goodwin said this week; 'it is an honour that the first vote I cast in Politics today will help millions of Americans'. The Unemployment Assistance entitlement of millions of Americans will be extended after Republicans failed to stop the Bill becoming Law. The extension will help hundreds of thousand of American families keep their heads above water while unemployed. The money they spend on Main Street will also help shops and services keep from going bankrupt. Good for the store owners and their employees. Well done Democrats. Well done America.

chronology: Mr Flashy; 'how do you come to the idea that Alex Jones is Right Wing'?, you have got to be joking or trying to wind me up.

davidk14: Chrono said: The Unemployment Assistance entitlement of millions of Americans will be extended after Republicans failed to stop the Bill becoming Law. The extension will help hundreds of thousand of American families keep their heads above water while unemployed.

David said: It’s unfortunate that your one sided media propaganda missed this itsy bitsy little piece of information:

It was the Dems who held up the bill.

The Republicans didn’t want to stop the unemployment payments; they just wanted it to be paid for with unpaid stimulus money.

The republicans didn’t want the “72 billion dollars” added to the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit the democrats have run up this year so far. But you didn’t read that part did you.

Its all about being “fiscally responsible”.

All you heard or wanted to hear is that the republicans are mean and don’t want to help the families that need help. Stop reading the one sided stories. Start watching FOX news. You might just start to learn that there are actually two sides a story.

.

chronology: Mr David. We both welcome the News. End of story.

flashie: chrono, yes i asked how you get to conclude jones AND paul are nazi?

flashie: is the constitution likened to mein kampf?

flashie: i kinda like what one of my fav americans said on facefook today...

'I'm neither progressive liberal republican or democrat. I'm an American who's tired of word games and BS.'

nyoil.


makes decent hiphop too

davidk14: Flashie....Still are you are a progressive liberal?