What don't you understand about helping their economies grow?

I understand. I just don't want to do it. I want our economy to grow. If thiers grows when ours grows that is good for them. If not then I feel bad for them. I do not think we should exploit them. But it is unreasonable to think that any company is going to go to a country where the average worker makes $0.50 per hour and try to pay them $5.00 per hour. That is crazy. I don't want our companies to move out of the US, but we have created a situation where it is easy and more profitable for them to do so. How do you make them not go?

Don't shop at wallmart.

You've got a computer, you've got Google, go to the extra trouble of finding American made stuff.

It will cost you more, you'll have to get along on six well made shirts instead of being in fashion with 24 pieces of crap. Your self esteem might be bruised by having to appear in public in last months fashion.

I know a single mother has to stretch the buck, yada, etc, blah. Oh look...I never saw that before, it's so cute and cheap......and I couldn't live without it.

Some things are not made here at all any more. 1- do you really need it? 2-do you really need that many?

That, my friend is how you make them not go, but it takes people who are willing to sacrifice for the good of others, for the good of the country.
And in case you haven't noticed, the whining motherfuckers all around you don't give a shit about anyone or anything that doesn't immediately affect them.

I already do that, most of it anyway. I have 3 F-150's among some other stuff. There is no promise that any of it is made in America anymore. The world has become global. But if I don't shop at Walmart my neighbor may be out of a job, along with all of the other Associates. I just can't do that to my neighbor. But I do try to buy American when I can. So how come the big Corps have not come back or stopped leaving, cause you know I have been doing this for a long time?

WalMart is the anti-christ.

By all means, please, be my guest. It's what make the world go around, around here.Did you misspeak or did I misunderstand? Please clarify what you mean when you say you won't permit leading questions, and justify it, if you can.

Right on, sister! Tell it!

Walmart isn't the devil, captialism is the devil. Walmart is just playing smart capitalism.

I think the last poll that suffered from that error resulted in the Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper headline.

There are now more households with phones than without.

I've even been admitting a lot of homeless people with cellphones. I think they come into the hospital so they have a place to plug in their chargers.

When someone other than the antichrist starts carrying adult diapers* for less than $15 a pack, let me know.



*they're for momWolf, not me. Really.

Damn, I was hot there for a sec.

You're a college student, aren't ya? ;)

I agree, we should stay OUT of other nations and take care of our own, while enforcing our, quite liberal, immigration laws as they stand.
However, if we really do this; just see how long we remain popular.;)

Capitalism is the devil? Please, tell me what is better (that still rewards those who work harder, smarter and inventors... and I mean not stealing from those who save, work harder/more and smarter or those who buy land).

Capitalism is better, and it has worked very well for me. I was being facetious concerning his response. If you don't build a factory and employ the population then they are most certainly less well off than had you employed them, even a $1 per hour. You cannot and should not try to establish parallels between how we employ a union worker in the US to a person in a factory in Thailand IMHO.

Capitalism is the Devil, IMO, but there are worse things...better the Devil you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc

Ow!

How did you guess....

Leaving out the fact that evil is relative, just because something works doesn't mean it isn't evil. Capitalism encourages just about every evil we see right now and it brings out the worst in people. Do you think there would be a war in Iraq if it wasn't for capitalism? Do you think there would be massive immigration to America if it wasn't for capitalism?

Capitalism works, no one should deny that, but to think that capitalism doesn't create evil is just as foolish.

That youthful optimism...capitalism evil...damn The Man! :D

Capitalism is supposed to pit competing evils against each other to promote good. i.e., the consumer picks the lesser of the available evils.

It doesn't always work.

It worked until the self-centered me,myself&I's came along.

I don't believe in evil.
The middle east would be and will be a theocracy and at war without capitalism and the west, it is their hobby.
Capitalism is not relevant to war in the east, we are just playing in their sandbox (no pun intended, but pleased with it).

To whom are you referring? The robber barons?

Self-centeredness and selfishness shouldn't be a problem in a capitalist society (as far as the capitalism goes, other aspects of the society will suffer). What breaks capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power in small groups, eliminating the competition that is supposed to keep them honestish.

You've said that a lot.

Citation of the actual statutes of the states involved, please.

I'm pretty sure that such laws have already been declared unconstitutional, and whatever states still have them do so out of laziness and/or pigheadedness.

Just like there are benevolent dictatorships, there should be benevolent capitalism. Unbridled capitalism gets toxic waste in your water and hot and cold running sewage from your faucet, among other evils. A successful capitalism would increase the middle class and reduce the wealth gap.

Here, I will hold your hand...

Ten more have language that can be interpreted to exclude unbelievers but are not specific laws. There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.

I know, good and evil are relative but I was talking about evil in our society's morals and ethical code. To the Western ethical code, capitalism is evil.

Can you please explain further, I am not following?

Except for world order, I can't think of a way that doesn't resort to capitalism or an aftereffect of capitalism.

No... I really think it is OT for this thread and am not up to it today.
Please start a middle-east thread.
There is very little capitalism in the middle-east, though, mostly theocracy.
www.ask.com

We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.

That sounds like some role-playing shit, but it's also pretty bitchin'.

No, not the Barons, they are doing what they always did, albeit on a much larger scale. Greed without borders, anyone?

I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.

Worse than that, it's one assholes interpretation of what they mean. Look at PA.

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."

It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.

Ah, that's true.

In many cases, it's BYOB.

You're holding nothing but your dick. I don't see one statute backing your claim, not one.

The Federal Constitution does not say there shall be a separation of Church and State. That's a modern shorthand for the actual wording which you're taking literally.

The language of all those citations is exactly what I'd expect from religious men in that era. And they were you know, they were religious men because the Federal Constitution guaranteed they could be, any religion they wanted and the Feds couldn't tell them they weren't the right religion or deny them office because of it. And most certainly didn't deny them office for lack of it, although if it was elected office, they probably couldn't get the votes.

That said, I had heard Delaware required belief in God to hold State office, but I don't know for sure.

Who can't be disqualified on account of religious sentiments? People who acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.

Who can? Everyone else.

It does explicitly leave atheists open to disqualification, though I don't think it actually disqualifies them. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure whether the exclusionary style of the sentence has such implications.

And here's a better list than the last one.

No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.

Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.

Keith Ellison in Minnesota swore in with the Qur’an

I would like to see someone wear in on an economics’ 1001 textbook...

Science encyclopedia?
You sure can't:

;)

Two versions:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."

"No person shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."

As long as you acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, you can't be disqualified on religious grounds. If you don't, you can.

And yes, I know this is moot, thanks to the Supreme Court, as I said earlier.

It's not like I think a state would use these laws to oust a candidtate... man, I really don't want to go there in my mind.
It is the idea that they still exist and how important things like anti-sodomy laws are to people.
The other issue is that, in 90% of the nation, you cannot obtain office... cannot represent the public in an official capacity (none of these jobs have shit to do with religion) without espousing a belief in something they have never seen one iota of evidence for. (I know this because I have a close relative in a high office who never went to church or mentioned god who now has to openly prays every day of her life and says crap like "co-pilot"... it is disgusting)
Europe is laughing at us... I know... I see them do it all the time on other channels.
We deserve it. We are tribesmen crying to the thunder.

God dammit. How long will it take people to realize that religion has nothing to do with morals.

As soon as they decide to think for themselves.

Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.

I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.

I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.

If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.

Oh! Edwardo, you're so forceful when you're angry!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...d/setsuna1.jpg

But they did not think about/care about blue laws, cabbies refusing to take fares because they had beer in their grocery bags, and the possibility that we could exclude non-believers from office, which we can do right now in many states.

It's not sneaky. It's deliberate. They were saying that any religion is fine as long as recognizes God and heaven. It's probably based on the idea that morals come from fear of punishment.

Your analogy fails because you used the same word in both places. Someone who "acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments" is not identical to someone with "religious sentiments".

Here, you're wrong (on a legal level). None of these laws are enforceable, as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Of course, on a societal level, non-believers certainly can be excluded by the electorate.

Bruce, I have to agree with HM. The analogy would be more "No black US citizen will be barred from my cab". Leaves you open to bar black Norwegians from your cab.

I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.

It doesn't say anything of the sort though does it? It says what it says, no more no less.
Well so does the PA law, it says religious people will not be discriminated against for public office, no more no less.
That's the trouble with this fucking country, weasels trying to twist things around to pull some bullshit, to fuck decent people for their own profit.
All the lawyers and politicians should become soap.

I wish you would get that sand out of your vagina.

And what it says is that only a certain type of religious sentiment is constitutionally protected from religious disqualification.

Wtf bruce? Does that apply to everyone, for every video?
Are you speaking as a moderator here, or are you just being an asshole to rage?

You are a grumpy fuck lately...

Tell you what Jinx, you're welcome to the fucking job. Just use LJ's moderator account and have at it.

Have at what? I don't see anything that needs to be done here.