Premier Rock Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:23 pm**

matthew wrote: Genuine poverty is virtually nonexistent in this country.

You are out of your fucking mind.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:24 pm**

matthew wrote:
Boombats wrote:
matthew wrote:If by desperately poor you mean people who are seriously malnourished and/or homeless, in this country you'll be hard-pressed to find people like this, and I know you've probably been around this country a bit (as I have too).

As long as you don't look at post-hurricane Louisiana.

Anyway I think by "desperately poor" Steve and others mean "desperate" enough to work for the kind of wage structure you propose.

But the question is "why are they allegedly desperate?" Are they, for example, mentally or physically disabled and unable to do work that pays better on one hand or on the other hand, for example, just plain lazy and unwilling to help themselves for whatever reason? You know the old saying about giving a man a fish, right? Well, if you keep giving a man fish every day, what incentive is he going to have to fish for himself (and more importantly, for HIS FELLOW MEN)?

Matthew, you are either having us on or you are Seth Putnam.

Maybe you should fuck that fish, then give it to the man. That would make sense.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:25 pm**

bassdriver wrote:I think keeping a certain part of the population poor and unemployed is in the interests the upper class/big industrialists. it's easier to browbeat the labor if you can threaten them with the loss of their livelihood.
also: who would join the army if everybody had a nice job or had access to education?

One hundred percent correct. Picture a turbulent sea full of people struggling to keep their heads above water. For those on the bottom rung of the workforce, if they turn and look over their shoulder, that is what they see. You can make the bottom rung a pretty unpleasant place, and people still won't jump off and take their chances in the ocean. They will do what you said: join the military. Or they will join the other day labor workforce kept thriving by the government: street level drug crime. Somebody has to handle distribution of those cash crops for the money-laundering bankers and the network of arms traffickers that is interchangeable with the network of synthetic terrorism that is interchangeable with the network of drug suppliers.

2 percent of the world population owes more than 50 percent of the capital. we're just their servants.

That is a very funny spelling error / freudian slip. They do owe a lot more to society-at-large. They own but do not owe. They just need us to worship their greed and live off pipe dreams that more than .001% of us will ever join their club.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:31 pm**

matthew wrote:
clocker bob wrote:
matthew wrote:
clocker bob wrote: What argument is this long WSJ paste even supposed to be in support of?

I was addressing Steve's arrogance with the Journal article. I think that was obvious. After all, Wal-Mart pretty much stands for everything reviled by liberals and leftists.....right, bob?

And what does the WSJ article tell us about Wal Mart that is supposed to change our opinion of that company? I ask you again- do you know anything about the economy of Oaxaca? It's possibly the poorest state in Mexico. Areas with largely mestizo populations are treated even more poorly by the ruling Castillians. Oaxacans have been trying to get rid of their corrupt governor for a year. General strikes and rioting have been ongoing.

There is only one 'Wal Mart' style success story. It follows these lines.
NY TIMES 2003 wrote:Wal-Mart's power is changing Mexico in the same way it changed the economic landscape of the United States, and with the same formula: cut prices relentlessly, pump up productivity, pay low wages, ban unions, give suppliers the tightest possible profit margins and sell everything under the sun for less than the guy next door.

Wal Mart contributed substantially to the election campaign of Calderon ( a fraudulent victory ).

So, what does an article by the WSJ celebrating a Wal Mart store in Oaxaca tell Steve about his 'arrogance' or his leftism? Break down the lesson we can take from your article, please.

You got a point in there somewhere? Besides, I can rarely read the Times without a chuckle anymore. Use a more credible source.

MY point is that free, global competitive markets (a core tenent of conservatism and an anathema to liberals and other leftists) WORK, though Albini seems to think that lifting people up by their bootstraps and giving them purchasing power through these is mean and evil. He'd rather just use his all-knowing, all feeling, all sensing intellect and heart to redistribute wealth willy-nilly and by fiat. Oh I know that's harsh and inflammatory sounding, but I can think of no other way to describe his mindset. It's actually totalitarianism in the larval stage....the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they used to say.

And by the way...."road to hell..." is a figure of speech, in case some of you people think I'm giving a good ol' fundie god-damming to Steve.

What are your sources?

Maybe you should stop and think about the fact that this free and global market of yours has put many, many farmers in the state of Oaxaca out of busines in what used to be their local economy. Something in which they simply cannot compete.

See, as a small farmer you produce enough of your own crop to feed your family and the rest you exchange or sell for other goods which are also basic human needs. When you can't even feed your family, you're goal is simply to survive.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:32 pm**

matthew wrote:
clocker bob wrote:In a country where the median per capita household income is approximately $45,000, a household that earns $20K is a houseold in poverty.

And the way up is: ambition, hard work and sacrifice, meaning self-sacrifice in the end. It's as simple as that, bob.

You fucking retard racist shit talking mental case. One more time:

1) There will ALWAYS be menial labor.

2) If everybody currently in the menial labor workforce 'self-sacrifices' their way out of it, who will do the work?

3) Whoever does take their place will be making a substandard wage to do work that is 100% necessary to the economy that we all enjoy! Is that what you want?

YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE BOTTOM RUNG. WE NEED THE WORKERS ON IT!

Now, state very clearly: Is it fair to pay those on the bottom rung a substandard wage?

Do not answer with a 'blame the poor' argument.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:36 pm**

Matthew is masturbating furiously. His boner gets imaginarily longer as this thread extends. I say we go back to talking shit about Rush, or just stop this thread. No jollies for the wind-up artist anymore.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:46 pm**

BadComrade wrote:So you seriously think people who are out of work for an extended period of time or the working poor who didn't have the luxury of attaining specialized skills are "lazy" because they either can't find a job, or find a good paying one?

Seriously?

Really?

Not necessarily, but it's not unlikely or unheard of. I think it is often the case that when it comes to education people don't realize how easy it is (with a little ambition) to get secondary education in the U.S., and I have first hand personal experience talking to peers about this. I don't base my views merely on cold numbers or the testimony and views of others; I base them on real live facts which I have seen myself. But again, ambition and drive can really overcome any difficulty. I've seen it in many people in many ways.

I think the problem certain people face when they are laid off for a just reason is that they have grown to feel a sense of entitlement to the job they have and can't see themselves doing anything else. That's just a psychological thing really. If I'm a father of 3 and I work for a paper mill for 15 years manufacturing paper goods, I'd imagine I'd get pretty attached to the job and would feel that way if the paper mill laid me off for whatever reason- be it a buy out or merger or financial trouble or whatever. But I'd have to face the reality that I'm no longer employed there and must find a new line of work, or else I'm gonna sink and drag my family down with me. I know it sounds easy on paper (no pun intended), but that's just the way it goes: you either sink or swim. My brother-in-law has been laid off three times in the past 6 years for example (though he works in the financial industry and that's not uncommon there). It just happens. What're gonna do?

You'd really have to do a case by case analysis of each individual "poor person" to really get a picture of what's going on with "the poor". Sociological and statistical analysis really don't get that deep, plus as we all know numbers can be manipulated............you ever had a conversation with a "poor" or homeless man? I have.....many times actually, and in several parts of the country.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:48 pm**

steve wrote:If you are desperately poor, you have bigger problems than pride.

actually, pride is a huge problem if you're desperately poor. especially in this society.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:54 pm**

matthew wrote:Sociological and statistical analysis really don't get that deep, plus as we all know numbers can be manipulated............you ever had a conversation with a "poor" or homeless man? I have.....many times actually, and in several parts of the country.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:54 pm**

matthew wrote:you ever had a conversation with a "poor" or homeless man? I have.....many times actually, and in several parts of the country.

Buying meth and handjobs from a man named Rufus doesn't count as "conversation."

Sorry everyone I know I said we should stop with this crap but I couldn't resist.

Premier Rock Forum

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh

radio personality: rush limbaugh