rush?

rush, rush i can feel you! i can feel you all through me!
Total votes: 2 (3%)
crap
Total votes: 59 (86%)
find him entertaining but don't necessarily agree with his politics
Total votes: 2 (3%)
find him entertaining but despise his politics
Total votes: 6 (9%)
Total votes: 69

radio personality: rush limbaugh

151
danmohr wrote:And the smoking bans.


Studies have shown that these bans (a) have not had an effect on the businesses that they were expected to affect, and (b) have been followed by immediate and statistically significant decreases in the number of hospital admissions for heart attacks (both among smokers and nonsmokers). Moreover, the study findings have been repeated. Thus, I support them.

I'm rather shocked to see some of the liberal skepticism about gun control laws. The only thing about them I find objectionable is the notion that a one-size-fits-all policy makes sense throughout the country. The gun laws suitable for Walnut, Iowa, are not necessarily suitable for Chicago or DC, and vice-versa.
My grunge/northwest rock blog

radio personality: rush limbaugh

152
danmohr wrote: The main thing I find depressing about "debates" like this is that the internet is pretty much only appropriate for stereotypical, reductionist arguments and not so much for actually expressing subtle differences in personal morals, ethics or experience (which can be exhibited in somewhat less subtle differences in ideology).


I think if you looked a little harder you'd find more examples of nuanced positions in these debates, at least among the left. The problem is, the roster of conservatives infrequently stretches beyond matthew, and matthew won't stand and defend his illogical and history-deficient positions, instead choosing to abandon them when he's been checkmated, taking flight to new rote illogical positions ( as most trolls, witting or unwitting, tend to do ).

Whenever I read a comment from the audience ( and I guess you are part of that, since you're not offering your position on the two debates ongoing, gun control and minimum wage ) that begins with 'debates like this ( and especially with "debates" in quotes, like you can barely bring yourself to call it that ), I know that I'm about to get a review of the debate that falls back on banal and threadbare complaints about the entire genre, with a subtext that boils down to "I'm too smart for your debate". Your blanket description of what you find- "stereotypical, reductionist arguments"- is the voice of someone who has decided that his positions will not get a fair hearing here, before he has found that out. So, rather than jump in the pool, you say that you don't like the looks of the water. What's funny is that people who take this position never seem able to turn away from the pool without lobbing in a patronizing sneer first.

radio personality: rush limbaugh

153
Seaside Lounge wrote:
matthew wrote:
Seaside Lounge wrote:...people with no education or career training...


Uh...then get some education and training, perhaps? Start at the bottom and work your way up.....that sort of thing?


Something tells me you didn't start at the bottom and as such, you have no real idea what you are talking about.

If everybody were trained and educated for skilled labor, who would bag your groceries? Who would pick up your garbage? Who would deliver your food? This system you are so crazy about requires lots and lots of menial labor, and it's the least we can do as privileged people to assure that the people doing this work make a good, living wage, that allows them to pursue a better life for themselves, or at least for their children. Some will take more advantage of this than others, but don't they at least have a right to the opportunity?

We can stop having this discussion at any time you like. It will go on as long as you keep spouting this idiocy.


And I suppose you have the know-how to fabricate such a "perfectly fair system", judging by what you say? (Mark the word system here, because it's crucial.) Please.

In any event, the job market is not so simple as you make it out to be. In the US there are many so-called "menial jobs" which are perfect for specific sorts of people, but crap for others. Waiting tables is, for example, a great job for a college or high school student who is a dependent. It is not on the other hand a good job for a single mother with a high school education and two kids. I know, then comes "well what ABOUT those single moms?" sort of questions. I think the first thing to do is ask in that case "well how did mom get to that point?"...e.g. did her husband ditch her and leave her destitute? Did she get knocked up a couple times by the seedy boyfriend who comes and goes as he pleases? Is she simply irresponsible in general? In other words, who's responsible for her predicament- her or someone else? Now, of course we should look out for our fellow men who are in real need, but that does not include
simply blindly throwing things at people who seem to be "having hard luck" because it makes you feel all nice and warm. In other words, social charity ought to be administered case by case (which...heh....also makes privatized charity more practical and efficient for such a task than any form of government dole). Real life example: I remember working at a soup kitchen when I was younger during the holidays once, and what struck me was the number of 20 something men there who looked relatively well-fed. They actually almost outnumbered the more stereotypical bums that came in. What was going on there? I've heard the same sort of thing from others who've worked at soup kitchens also. I find it hard to believe that all these guys were "down on their luck"......in fact I find that notion to be utter horseshit. Maybe a lot if not most of them were just simply losers (not to mention some were probably not even homeless)! Of course, liberal do-gooders just love the "warm fuzzy feelings" that accompany any attempt to "be compassionate", because liberalism subsists on emotions even when facts fly in its face.

That said, when it comes to "pursuing a better life", that is something which is earned. Besides, what exactly does a better life mean? It's a nebulous, relative term. About all that people are "entitled" to are basic food, clothing and shelter......if you want, say, a PS3, a Les Paul Custom or a nice house, or if you want to go take a world tour, go get a damn job and earn the money to acquire and do these things or get training to get a job that will allow you to have these things. In this country, secondary education and technical training is so damned easy to get it's almost a joke.....and I don't mean Harvard and Yale. I mean, say, DeVry or a local community college- and those sorts of places allow you to transfer to a undergrad or grad program at a university and thus extend your credentials. It's such bullshit when people in the US say "I can't afford school period". Such bullshit. Take out a damned loan.

I hope you're getting the gist of what I'm saying: if you want a "better life", be a responsible, mature human being with some ambition and EARN it with hard work and sacrifice. Trust me- I know this because I learned it the hard way and nearly fucked my life up in the process.

radio personality: rush limbaugh

155
alex maiolo wrote:
m.koren wrote:
alpha80 wrote:TBH, listening to Rush is really about maintaining a comprehensive understanding of the majority of social/mental problems


Great , I always wondered what Geddy was hollering on about.


I've been told that it has something to do with Oaks ignoring the Maples' pleas for more sunlight.

Maples...weak

-A

I don't need no stinkin' sunlight
Marsupialized wrote:The last time I saw her, she had some Jewish bullshit going on

ubercat wrote:You're fucking cock-tease aren't you, you little minx.

radio personality: rush limbaugh

156
Steve wrote:Like we were wrong about slavery, about abolition, about woman's suffrage, about prohibition, about children in the workforce, about minimum wage, about fascism, about civil rights, about Apartheid, about the Vietnam war, about the current war...

Wait, we are not wrong. We are almost never wrong. Fuck you for saying we "mostly fucking wrong." Fuck you for ignoring the obvious.


I guess Wal-Mart, that bastion of evil, mean Bushiness and icon of big business conservativism and greed, is actually hurting our neighbor south of the Rio Grande. Read this article from today's WSJ for all the juicy details:

The 3/5/07 edition of the Wall Street Journal wrote:SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY
In Mexico, Wal-Mart
Is Defying Its Critics
Low Prices Boost Its
Sales and Popularity
In Developing Markets
By JOHN LYONS
March 5, 2007; Page A1

JUCHITÁN, Mexico -- For as long as anyone can remember, shopping for many items in this Zapotec Indian town meant lousy selection and high prices. Most families live on less than $4,000 a year. Little wonder that this provincial corner of Oaxaca, historically famous for keeping outsiders at bay, welcomed the arrival of Wal-Mart.

Back home in the U.S., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is known not only for its relentless focus on low prices but also for its many critics, who assail it for everything from the wages it pays to its role in homogenizing American culture. But while its growth in the U.S. is slowing, Wal-Mart is striking gold south of the border, largely free from all the criticism. Like Wal-Mart fans in less affluent parts of America, most shoppers in developing countries are much more concerned about the cost of medicine and microwaves than the cultural incursions of a multinational corporation.
WSJ's John Lyons checks in from the Juchitán, Mexico, Wal-Mex. See a morning cheer by workers in the Zapotec language.

That fact is making Wal-Mart a dominant force in Latin America. Wal-Mart de México SAB, a publicly traded subsidiary, is not only the biggest private employer in Mexico -- it's the biggest single retailer in Latin America. Sales at Wal-Mex, as the Mexican unit is called, are forecast to rise 16% to $21 billion this year, representing a quarter of Wal-Mart's foreign revenue. International revenue soared 30% to $77.1 billion, accounting for 22% of Wal-Mart's sales, in the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Wal-Mex profits are forecast to grow 20% to $1.3 billion this year.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's biggest stumbles have occurred in more affluent foreign markets like Japan. It incurred roughly $1 billion in charges last year to depart Germany and South Korea.

Wal-Mart is now betting on the world's most populated developing nations as its engine for future growth. The retailer is acquiring a retail chain in China, for instance, and seeking to open in India, where it's been kept at bay, with new local partners.

"Wal-Mart can have a dramatic effect in emerging markets," says Mark Husson, who covers Wal-Mart for HSBC Securities. "If you look where Wal-Mart has been less successful, it's the developed economies like Germany and Japan, where you have sophisticated urban dwellers who have a whole host of other concerns."

Wal-Mart's revenues in the U.S. grew 7.8% last year. In an attempt to import some of Wal-Mex's success, the company promoted Eduardo Castro-Wright, a top Wal-Mex executive from 2001 to 2005, to serve as chief executive of its U.S. stores. Mr. Castro-Wright is also a board member of Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

When Wal-Mart was building a store in Juchitán in 2005, local shopkeepers and leftist groups tried to rouse popular sentiment against the American invader. The efforts failed, and by the end of opening day sales were so strong "the place looked like it had been looted," says Max Jimenez, the store's 31-year-old manager. The store's sales nearly doubled Wal-Mart's initial projections last year, and it still attracts customers from hours away.

Wal-Mart bet on Mexico just as the country was opening to global trade. After Mexico's devastating currency crash and economic collapse in 1994, Sears Roebuck & Co. and former rival Kmart both pulled up stakes, but Wal-Mart stuck it out. Carrefour SA, a key global rival for Wal-Mart, pulled out in 2005 after failing to gain share in an increasingly competitive market.

A Counterweight

In Mexico, Wal-Mart has been a counterweight to the powers that control commerce. One of the most closed economies in the world until the late 1980s, Mexico was dominated for decades by a handful of big grocers and retailers. All were members of a national retailing association called ANTAD, and cutthroat competition was taboo. At the local level, towns are still hostage to local bosses, known here as caciques, the Indian word for local strongmen who control politics and commerce.

Wal-Mart's jobs pay well by Mexican standards and serve as a gateway to the state health and pension systems. Full-time jobs with regular salaries are scarce. About half Mexico's labor force -- 20 million people -- work in a so-called informal economy of day laborers, unregistered taxi drivers and street vendors. Their salaries are in cash and they pay no taxes. Because they aren't in the tax system, they are also not eligible for the state-run health-care system and government mortgage subsidies, and they have no pensions.
[Mexico]

In a country where family connections often matter more than skill, Wal-Mart trains floor workers to rise to management. Plus, Wal-Mart lowered prices on thousands of staples from tomatoes to diapers, helping stretch low wages here for millions of middle-class and poor consumers.

The retailer entered Mexico in 1991, teaming up with local retailer Cifra SA. When Wal-Mart started to publish price comparisons showing how much cheaper its prices were, other retailers were outraged. In 2002, Wal-Mex was forced to resign from ANTAD. Then rivals were forced to improve service and keep up with price cuts to stay in business. In January alone, Wal-Mart cut prices on 7,500 items.

Some in Mexico aren't happy with the fact that Wal-Mart now accounts for half of the country's entire supermarket sales. Mexico's beloved open-air food markets, where hawkers buff up the fruit and offer tasty sample slices, have been hit hard. Over the past few years, local shopkeepers have teamed up with leftist intellectuals to try to block the construction of new Wal-Marts in several places.

"When the small-business owner goes out of business, the middle class gets smaller," says Sebastián Alvarez, a 34-year-old liquor-store owner who is part of a group in the tourist mecca of Los Cabos, at the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, seeking to block a Wal-Mart. Though opposition is small today, he said he expects criticism of Wal-Mart to grow in coming years -- just as it did over time in the U.S.
[Hector Matus]

For now, however, such efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based antiglobalization group, is advising Mr. Alvarez and others in Los Cabos who want to prevent Wal-Mart from entering Baja California Sur, the only Mexican state without a Wal-Mart store. The group figured it might sway the town's new left-wing mayor, Luis Diaz, a member of a political party that opposes free trade.

But Mr. Diaz is welcoming the American retailer. "I can understand that some businesses might be hurt by Wal-Mart, but the fact is that the people here want it. It increases the purchasing power of people with very little money," Mr. Diaz says in an interview.

Hero With Politicians

Wal-Mart's success among the poor of Mexico has made it something of a hero with politicians here. Compare how Wal-Mart's applications to move into banking were received in the U.S. and in Mexico. North of the border, labor unions and banks have all but killed the plan. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke raised concerns about regulating a combined lender and retailer.

In contrast, Mexico's central banker Guillermo Ortiz is a Wal-Mart fan, once crediting its price cutting with helping control inflation in the years after Mexico's 1994 currency collapse. Mr. Ortiz and other regulators hope Wal-Mart will change Mexican banking, which is dominated by a few foreign-owned financial firms that cater mainly to the wealthy. Wal-Mart got its Mexican banking license quickly, and branches of its Adelante bank (which means "forward" in Spanish) are set to open this year.

Wal-Mart's success in Mexico is on display in Juchitán, a sun-soaked desert village of 90,000 residents near southern Oaxaca state's Pacific coast. The town, a hotbed of left-wing politics, fought off the Aztecs, the Spanish and the invading French over the centuries. Many people here still prefer to speak Zapotec rather than Spanish.

When Wal-Mart started to build one of its "Bodega Aurrera" stores -- austere versions of the Super Center designed to meet small-town needs -- a scattering of marchers gathered on a few days to protest that the new store would put local merchants out of business, and harm the local culture. But the protests died out because most people wanted the store, the first big national retailer to venture in.
[Bodega Battle]

In Juchitán, as in other small Mexican towns, consumer goods often cost far more than in cities, partly because of transport costs. But Wal-Mart's huge fleet of trucks and computerized logistics allow it to sell a microwave at the same price in Juchitán as in Mexico City. To do it, Wal-Mart squeezes out overhead even more aggressively in its small-town stores. The floors of the Bodega store are concrete, which requires a smaller cleaning staff.

In recent months, as rising prices for U.S. corn pushed up the price of Mexico's corn tortilla, a staple for millions of poor, Wal-Mart could keep tortilla prices largely steady because of its long-term contracts with corn-flour suppliers. The crisis turned into free advertising for Wal-Mart, as new shoppers lined up for the cheaper tortillas.

Wal-Mart also overcame a Juchitán cacique, or local boss: Héctor Matus, a trained doctor who goes by La Garnacha, the name for a fried tortilla snack popular in town. Dr. Matus, 55, owns six pharmacies, stationery stores and general stores. He has also held an array of political posts, including Juchitán mayor and state health minister. As town mayor from 2002 to 2004, he says he blocked a national medical-testing chain from opening in town because it meant low-price competition to local businessmen doing blood work.

But Dr. Matus couldn't persuade local and state officials to block Wal-Mart, and he is feeling the pinch. Sales are off 15% at his stores since Wal-Mart arrived, and he is now lowering prices in response. Even so, he's still more expensive. A box of Losec stomach medicine costs 80 pesos ($7.30) at one of Dr. Matus's stores, marked down from 86 pesos. The price at Wal-Mart is 77 pesos ($7.20).

Dr. Matus isn't happy about the competition. "I could still kick them out of town, because I know how to mobilize people," he said, sitting in his living room surrounded by pictures of him with leading Mexican politicians dating back to the 1970s. Despite his bravado, town officials say Wal-Mart is staying. "The ones who have benefited the most [from Wal-Mart] are the poorest," says Feliciano Santiago, the deputy mayor. "I hope another one comes."

Fitting In

When Wal-Mart opened its doors here, it tried hard to fit in. It found Zapotec-speaking interviewers to put applicants at ease. At the morning sales meeting here, the obligatory Wal-Mart cheer is shouted in Zapotec ("Gimme a W!" is "Dané Ná Ti W!"). Product announcements are broadcast in Zapotec by saleswomen in traditional flowing skirts and ornate blouses. Shoppers hear the strident trumpets and cymbal clashes of local tunes, called sones de Tehuantepec.

In Mexican towns like Juchitán, shopping at a Wal-Mart is a high-end experience. The air conditioning and lights are on. Across town at an outdoor market, flies swarm on buckets of shrimp and fish piled on counters without ice, let alone refrigeration.

Gisela López, the 31-year-old head of billing at the Juchitán store, benefited from the retailer's system of promoting from within. Raised by her uneducated, Zapotec-speaking grandparents, Ms. López earned a computer degree at Juchitán's small technical college and then left for the booming northern city of Monterrey in search of opportunity.

Lacking connections, she couldn't find the office job she dreamed about, and took a job at one of Wal-Mart's stores. After three months, Ms. López made cashier supervisor, and later moved over to the billing department. When Wal-Mart opened a store in Juchitán, Ms. López jumped at the chance to move home -- and was promoted to billing chief in the process.

"It's a very different place to work, because you can succeed by your own effort," says Ms. López, whose $12,000-a-year salary now puts her in Mexico's middle class.

Ms. López's story of economic mobility is a rare one. Most of her childhood friends don't have steady jobs, she said. The success stories are friends who inherited jobs from their parents at the state oil company's big refinery in Salina Cruz, about an hour away.

Write to John Lyons at john.lyons@wsj.com


Guess that means that sometimes, you guys are wrong, Steve.

radio personality: rush limbaugh

158
matthew wrote:
Seaside Lounge wrote:
matthew wrote:
Seaside Lounge wrote:...people with no education or career training...


Uh...then get some education and training, perhaps? Start at the bottom and work your way up.....that sort of thing?


Something tells me you didn't start at the bottom and as such, you have no real idea what you are talking about.

If everybody were trained and educated for skilled labor, who would bag your groceries? Who would pick up your garbage? Who would deliver your food? This system you are so crazy about requires lots and lots of menial labor, and it's the least we can do as privileged people to assure that the people doing this work make a good, living wage, that allows them to pursue a better life for themselves, or at least for their children. Some will take more advantage of this than others, but don't they at least have a right to the opportunity?

We can stop having this discussion at any time you like. It will go on as long as you keep spouting this idiocy.


And I suppose you have the know-how to fabricate such a "perfectly fair system", judging by what you say? (Mark the word system here, because it's crucial.) Please.

In any event, the job market is not so simple as you make it out to be. In the US there are many so-called "menial jobs" which are perfect for specific sorts of people, but crap for others. Waiting tables is, for example, a great job for a college or high school student who is a dependent. It is not on the other hand a good job for a single mother with a high school education and two kids. I know, then comes "well what ABOUT those single moms?" sort of questions. I think the first thing to do is ask in that case "well how did mom get to that point?"...e.g. did her husband ditch her and leave her destitute? Did she get knocked up a couple times by the seedy boyfriend who comes and goes as he pleases? Is she simply irresponsible in general? In other words, who's responsible for her predicament- her or someone else? Now, of course we should look out for our fellow men who are in real need, but that does not include
simply blindly throwing things at people who seem to be "having hard luck" because it makes you feel all nice and warm. In other words, social charity ought to be administered case by case (which...heh....also makes privatized charity more practical and efficient for such a task than any form of government dole). Real life example: I remember working at a soup kitchen when I was younger during the holidays once, and what struck me was the number of 20 something men there who looked relatively well-fed. They actually almost outnumbered the more stereotypical bums that came in. What was going on there? I've heard the same sort of thing from others who've worked at soup kitchens also. I find it hard to believe that all these guys were "down on their luck"......in fact I find that notion to be utter horseshit. Maybe a lot if not most of them were just simply losers (not to mention some were probably not even homeless)! Of course, liberal do-gooders just love the "warm fuzzy feelings" that accompany any attempt to "be compassionate", because liberalism subsists on emotions even when facts fly in its face.

That said, when it comes to "pursuing a better life", that is something which is earned. Besides, what exactly does a better life mean? It's a nebulous, relative term. About all that people are "entitled" to are basic food, clothing and shelter......if you want, say, a PS3, a Les Paul Custom or a nice house, or if you want to go take a world tour, go get a damn job and earn the money to acquire and do these things or get training to get a job that will allow you to have these things. In this country, secondary education and technical training is so damned easy to get it's almost a joke.....and I don't mean Harvard and Yale. I mean, say, DeVry or a local community college- and those sorts of places allow you to transfer to a undergrad or grad program at a university and thus extend your credentials. It's such bullshit when people in the US say "I can't afford school period". Such bullshit. Take out a damned loan.

I hope you're getting the gist of what I'm saying: if you want a "better life", be a responsible, mature human being with some ambition and EARN it with hard work and sacrifice. Trust me- I know this because I learned it the hard way and nearly fucked my life up in the process.


Matthew, you're very good at passing judgement on the people on the bottom rung. Maybe someday you will learn the the top rung deserves at least as much, if not more, judging.

How the fuck do you look yourself in the mirror everyday, and still call yourself a christian? Vampire is closer to the truth.

radio personality: rush limbaugh

160
The 3/5/07 edition of the Wall Street Journal wrote:In Mexico, Wal-Mart
Is Defying Its Critics

JUCHITÁN, Mexico -- For as long as anyone can remember, shopping for many items in this Zapotec Indian town meant lousy selection and high prices. Most families live on less than $4,000 a year.


And the solution for the poor people of Oaxaca is to bring in Wal Mart? Do you even know the first thing about the social strata of Mexico, and Oaxaca in particular? ( I know, why even ask? ) What argument is this long WSJ paste even supposed to be in support of? Your 'no minimum wage' argument? Your 'go get a job, you lazy bum' argument? What?

WSJ wrote:Gisela López, the 31-year-old head of billing at the Juchitán store, ... whose $12,000-a-year salary now puts her in Mexico's middle class.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests