|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:05 AM February 16th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It's about time someone called Moore on this. I thought I was the only one. I don't mean his politics, since I'm totally disenfranchised from both major parites right now. I mean his gratuitous man bashing in the name of progressive thought.
He is the person who best proves his own point.
Go Glenn!
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:14 AM February 16th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
And when the Democrats get trounced among male voters in 2004, I know what explanation you'll give. In fact, you've already written it in Stupid White Men: "men are just not as smart as women."
It's time to call the Democratic Party to account. Time to boot out NOW and the rest of the anti-male hate mongers who have infested the party. Time to denounce the criminalization of males. Time to declare that "pro-choice" should not be just for women. Time to denounce sexist Selective Service registration. It's time to protest against the systematic injustices that have made men into second-class citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:05 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"Time to denounce the criminalization of males. Time to declare that "pro-choice" should not be just for women. Time to denounce sexist Selective Service registration. It's time to protest against the systematic injustices that have made men into second-class citizens."
=================================================
So let's keep asking candidates where they stand on men's issues. I suspect the most common reply will be, "Huh?" from both parties.
(click)Vote Men's Rights
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey here is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't go up to any candidate and ask them how they feel about "men's issues." They'll give you the same look Nipper gave His Master's Voice, or they'll give you glib answer and travel off to another place or at least another topic. Ask them specifically about an issue. For example "Mr Assemblyman, what is your position on the paternity-fraud legislation currently in committee? Would you vote to force the bill out of committee?" Be specific. Don't give them a chance to sqwiggle away before you can corner them and "out" them on the issues.
Note to Ray: I looked at your selection and I think that I'd have trouble wearing shirts with messages as blunt as yours. Don't get me wrong, they're nice shirts. I just like more subtle messages, ones that are a little less "in your face" and a little more "cerebral." I suggest the following, on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker:
Get out the ^male vote [with the word male hand-written in over a caret] , or
REAL MEN VOTE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:36 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
How about a humerous approach for those who like that method? "Doing my part to cheese off the man-haters" showing a man laughing hysterically at a bunch of sour-faced women carrying man-hating signs comes to mind.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offense to Glenn Sacks, because I really admire him for what he does, but how in the world does he figure that Moore was EVER the friend of the "working man"?
Michael Moore wouldn't know an honest day's work if it walked up and bit him in the ass. I always find it humorous (and hypocritical) how these rich leftists say they're for workers and "the little guy". Michael Moore sits on his fat ass in his posh New York apartment, chauffeured around in his limousine, enjoying the high life, while the people he pretends to stand for are the ones who work everyday trying to make ends meet.
What the hell does Moore know of honest work? He stands in front of a camera and bashes the rich, the corporations, the men of the country, while he himself makes millions from it.
I am an example of a "working man". I've worked my butt off, and right now am in school trying to obtain a degree to better myself. Right now I'm essentially living from check-to-check. Moore doesn't stand for me, nor has he ever.
Back in Feb. of '03 I was laid off from work. What did I do immediately after I was laid off? I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the company that I worked for and thanked him for the 12 years that he employed me. Why did I do it? Because I realize that he didn't have to hire me in the first place. He didn't owe me a job, but he hired me anyway. I was able to obtain some of the necessities of life, along with a few minor luxuries, because of that "greedy" corporation. According to Michael Moore, that Chairman would be an "evil" and "selfish" capitalist. Well, I thanked that "evil, selfish" capitalist, because he didn't owe me those 12 years of employment, but he employed me nonetheless.
Michael Moore can kiss my capitalism-loving ass. I'd rather align myself with the richest, greediest, most reprehensible businessman out there who at least is honest about his greed, than associate with someone like Moore who pretends to care for the poor and downtrodden, all the while living the high life.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:27 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Moore is a salesman, I think.
And he knows that hate sells. It especialy sells to women, who have been given full lisence by society to hate as savagely as they like.
He also knows that it is P.C. to be anti-white. and that sells to minorities. (But not this minority person.)
I also find it interesting that while certain minority leaders and feminists always preach that hateing others because of their race or gender is WRONG, are the very people who spout hate towards others because of their race or gender.
As I've said before; If it is wrong to hate because of race or gender, then it is WRONG to hate because of race or gender PIRIOD.
Some minotiry leaders and many femininsts are talkin' outta both sides of their mouths, me thinks...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moore is one of those moral relativists who make money telling people how to blame everyone else for their problems. He's a guy who's stumbled on the right combination of Chicken Little, Political Correctness, and Socialism... which when properly mixed with hysteria and shameless self promotion has allowed him to do well for himself. It's braincell killing fare but appeals to the more sheeplike members in more intellectually challenged quadrants of society.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:38 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
napnip>>>>>>>"Michael Moore can kiss my capitalism-loving ass. I'd rather align myself with the richest, greediest, most reprehensible businessman out there who at least is honest about his greed, than associate with someone like Moore who pretends to care for the poor and downtrodden"
You mean, like these capitalists?----->
"Since 1985 over 3,800 union workers and leaders have been assassinated in Colombia, making it by far the most dangerous place on earth to fight for workers' rights.
In 2001, according to the United Workers' Central (CUT), the country's 600,000-member central trade union, there were 169 assassinations of union workers, 30 more attempted assassinations, 79 "disappeared" or kidnapped, and over 400 reports of threats and intimidations. More union workers are killed annually in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined. And, as of this week, 2002 shows every indication of keeping pace with 2001's horrific toll: 45 unionists have been killed so far in Colombia."
http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia110.htm
And........
"Workers suffer constant harassment and intimidation by the right-wing paramilitary group, United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC).
"Most of the threats and intimidation were forthcoming during periods of collective bargaining", Mr Suarez said. "Many union offices have been sprayed with gunfire. More than 60 union officials are in hiding."
Last year more than 50 union leaders were killed in Colombia and more than 1500 in the past 10 years. According to the United Workers Central, since 1995, 3800 unionists have been assassinated, and many others have "disappeared" or been kidnapped.
The paramilitaries have declared the death penalty against all union leaders. Mr Suarez also said there was full complicity between the AUC and employers, the state and the paramilitary.
"Corporations like Coca Cola benefit from low-wage labour in Colombia and turn a blind eye to the murder and union-busting because it benefits their bottom line", he said.
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1089coke.html
How 'bout these guys too?------->
"The efforts to stop unions on the banana plantations have been going on for a long time, but now we're seeing a descent into pure thuggery.The Ecuadorian government has a responsibility to prevent this kind of violence............In late April, the Ministry of Labor recognized three trade unions formed by the workers from Los lamos, a positive step towards respecting workers' right to organize.
According to Ecuadorian workers' organizations, however, three more union activists were reportedly illegally fired on May 2. On May 6, largely in response to the firings, the workers of the Los lamos plantation group declared a strike. Though a workers' organization allegedly requested police protection for the striking workers, none arrived until violence erupted.
At approximately 2:00 AM on the morning of May 16, between 200 and 400 hooded, armed men entered the Los lamos plantation group, where workers living on the plantations were sleeping. Reports indicate that the hooded men banged on workers' doors with rifle butts, dragged roughly eighty of them from their homes, hit many with rifle butts, insulted them, looted their homes, and told many that they would be killed and dumped into the river. The hooded men also fired at at least one striking worker, injuring him critically and causing the subsequent amputation of his leg. Approximately six hours later, about six policemen reportedly arrived at the plantations. "
http://hrw.org/press/2002/05/ecuador0522.htm
Not that I like Michael Moore all that much, but at least he doesn't align himself with people such as these, while criticizing wealthy comfy people who claim to speak for the "working man".
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I wouldn't support them. But then, I never claimed to support murderers. I said that I support capitalism and capitalists, not murderers.
Capitalism, by definition, is a system wherein the means of production (and property in general) is privately owned, and in which citizens must voluntarily trade value-for-value if they wish to obtain something. (The word "voluntarily" is the key word in that sentence, which means that the use of force must be outlawed, except for purposes of self-defense.)
So no, I obviously wouldn't support those murderers and assassins you listed. I support true capitalists who actually know and believe what capitalism stands for.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:46 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"(The word "voluntarily" is the key word in that sentence, which means that the use of force must be outlawed, except for purposes of self-defense.)"
This is a really convenient tenet 'after' the fact of 'innitiation of force'. The land that is now owned privately was originally stolen from those who were using it. For example the Native Americans. This is also the case for Europe, where capitalism first originated after/around abolishing fuedalist kingdoms using our modern day 'nation states' (the fuedal kingdoms were created by the initiation of force). The 'property owning' class of that time period used the state to wrestle away fuedal lands/kingdoms into the hands of private individuals to expand libetty in 'their' time period. And here we are today with remnant's of previous intitians of force.
"So no, I obviously wouldn't support those murderers and assassins you listed. I support true capitalists who actually know and believe what capitalism stands for. "
I'am glad to hear that you do not support them.
Although, communists, say that totalitarianism isn't what marxism stands for, or is. That, "that wasn''t real 'communism'. But again and again, we get the same things happening from both clubs.
If this were not the case, people wouldn't need to require enviromental regulations for capitalists to stop polluting the Earth for a profit. Workers wouldn't need unions, or institutions like OSHA. Workers wouldn't have needed to fight for the weekend or the 8 hour day. There wouldn't have to be anti-union busting laws for workers. From consumer safety, to workers safety, to enviromental safety, we are always needing to protect ourselves from them.
So, maybe it is the system itself, just like marxism. And not so much the individual capitalist that is the aberration from 'true' capitalism.
I realize this argument can go further, but I do not think it is the place to go off on a different topic, so I think I'll stop. I just felt like defending why even a wealthy man such as Michael Moore would say the things he says about corporations, try to defend 'working people' from them. By the way, he isn't an anti-capitalist. But I'am : )
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism as an economic system was not brought about by mass "voluntary" endorsements of millions of working men an women.
In its present guise, industrial monopoly capitalism evolved out of the forced destruction of agricultural and historically sustainable non-market communities, and their absorption into the "free" market.
Capitalism requires destruction as its engine of "creative" expansion. (See - NAFTA and the ongoing Third Worldization of the US working family... thank gawd for WalMart and China's slave-labor market... they're buying us all just a few more years of pretend middle-class dementia before the truth outs...)
When the next-to-the-last "voluntary" capitalist is hanged, the last "volunteer" will certainly be selling rope.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a really convenient tenet 'after' the fact of 'innitiation of force'. The land that is now owned privately was originally stolen from those who were using it. For example the Native Americans.
That's true. However, you're comparing apples and oranges. 1) I never said that I would have supported the theft of land from the Indians had I lived at the time, and 2) We're not living during those times, this is today.
Now the standard response is usually "But you're profitting from the actions of those past thieves!" Sure we are. Nobody would deny that. (At least they shouldn't.) However, the fact is that today we have established an abundant, productive, well populated semi-capitalist society, and that any so-called "remedy" you might suggest wherein all land be suddenly returned to the decendents of the original inhabitants would completely destroy said society. (Because that would be all the land.)
I'am glad to hear that you do not support them.
Although, communists, say that totalitarianism isn't what marxism stands for, or is. That, "that wasn''t real 'communism'. But again and again, we get the same things happening from both clubs.
But once again, you're not considering what the real definitions actually are. Communism is founded on the principle of violent revolution. (i.e. the forcible seizure of the means of production by the "working class") Socialism, on the other hand, is the seizure of the means of production through democratic means. (Observe that even through so-called "democratic" means that the gun must ultimately be resorted to if one wishes to successfully seize the means of production, otherwise the owner could simply say "No, piss on you I won't relinquish it."
The Left has always had to resort to some type of physical force to achieve its goals, and always will. Why? Because they will never gain 100% support from the population. There will always be some individuals who simply say "No", and refuse to hand over their property/means of production. (Which is why the use of force is one of the key principles to a socialist or communist system, regardless of the protests by so-called "anarchists" who claim to hate any government at all.)
You say that capitalism ultimatly resorts to the same thing? Then what is the real definition of capitalism? I've already given it. A system wherein property and the means of production is privately owned, and the individual or group must voluntarily trade value-for-value to obtain what he/she/they want. If you want Item X in a capitalist society, you'd better be prepared to bargain for it, offering something of value as trade. Or you might be able to rely on the good will and charity of your neighbor. (That's not a guarantee, however, as not everybody is filled with "good will", but regardless, you have no right to forcibly seize the property of even the greedy, cold-hearted person.)
So what if a business owner relies on force to achieve his or her objectives? The he/she isn't truly a capitalist. Sure, he or she may live in a capitalist system, but that doesn't mean that he or she takes capitalism itself seriously. All he or she would take seriously is his/her profits, but not the voluntary system which is truly capitalism. (Note: Profits are very important, obviously, but if the business owner feels he has a right to initiate force against his neighbors, then he's not a real capitalist regardless of his love for profit.) And if the government turns a blind eye to the aggression, and allows the business owner to get away with it? Then it's not truly a capitalist system, because the initiation of force is overlooked and allowed.
If this were not the case, people wouldn't need to require enviromental regulations for capitalists to stop polluting the Earth for a profit. Workers wouldn't need unions, or institutions like OSHA. Workers wouldn't have needed to fight for the weekend or the 8 hour day. There wouldn't have to be anti-union busting laws for workers. From consumer safety, to workers safety, to enviromental safety, we are always needing to protect ourselves from them.
Of course we do. A true capitalist system allows for these things. Because requiring a worker to operate in an unsafe environment is an act of aggression by the employer. He or she has a right to employ and require such-and-such of his workers, but to put them in a potential state of harm when he could do otherwise is an act of aggression.
Same with pollution. Nobody has the right to overly pollute when steps can be taken to minimize it, especially if pollution can be proven to cause health problems. (Which it can.) That is an act of aggression. To require that companies operate at a reasonable level of cleanliness isn't anti-capitalist, its very pro-capitalist, because it's preventing the company from committing an act of aggression by harming the health of others through pollution.
Same with OSHA. Same with the 8-hour workday you metioned. Etc.....
So, maybe it is the system itself, just like marxism. And not so much the individual capitalist that is the aberration from 'true' capitalism.
Or maybe it is the individual who strays from true capitalism. Maybe people simply don't know what real capitalism is, and condemn something that they think is capitalism, but in reality is just a counterfeit.
I realize this argument can go further, but I do not think it is the place to go off on a different topic, so I think I'll stop.
OK. Whatever.
I just felt like defending why even a wealthy man such as Michael Moore would say the things he says about corporations, try to defend 'working people' from them. By the way, he isn't an anti-capitalist.
I don't know of any rich people who really are anti-capitalist. Sure, there are lots of rich people who pretend to be anti-capitalist, such as Hanoi Jane during Vietnam. But they're not really. Because they profit too much from capitalism to abandon it.
Because at the end of the day, after they've attended their anti-capitalism rallys and given their anti-capitalism speeches, and given their interviews to such socialist rags as The Nation and God knows what else, they'll get into their limousines and ride back to their mansions, recline on their huge sofas and eat caviar and drink their champagne, which without capitalism none of that would be possible.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:23 AM February 17th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"That's true. However, you're comparing apples and oranges. 1) I never said that I would have supported the theft of land from the Indians had I lived at the time, and 2) We're not living during those times, this is today. "
The point is that this land now currently in the hands of the capitalists is stolen property, so why should workers respect such property? It is not apples and oranges, it is an explanantion of where capitalist property comes from. It was stolen from people who were using the land before these "property rights' were even set up (Europe as well).
napnip---Of course we do. A true capitalist system allows for these things. Because requiring a worker to operate in an unsafe environment is an act of aggression by the employer. He or she has a right to employ and require such-and-such of his workers, but to put them in a potential state of harm when he could do otherwise is an act of aggression.
Same with pollution. Nobody has the right to overly pollute when steps can be taken to minimize it, especially if pollution can be proven to cause health problems. (Which it can.) That is an act of aggression. To require that companies operate at a reasonable level of cleanliness isn't anti-capitalist, its very pro-capitalist, because it's preventing the company from committing an act of aggression by harming the health of others through pollution.
Same with OSHA. Same with the 8-hour workday you metioned. Etc..... "
All these laws and regulations are limititaions on the exploitation to workers,consumers,enviroment that property owners can do. It is interesting that 'real' capitalism wouldn't do these things, yet we will always need protection and regulations so they won't do these things for a profit. It is inherent in the capitalists system for property owners to this to survive the competition.
" and that any so-called "remedy" you might suggest wherein all land be suddenly returned to the decendents of the original inhabitants would completely destroy said society. (Because that would be all the land."
I'm saying that land should be returned to
"user rights", instead of property rights since property is 'based' on the initiaintion of force, and is kept of from the use of force by the state. For if workers simply ignored the property right of capitalilsts, the capitalists would say "thios is initiation of force", and use the state against workers jusrt like they do today and in the past.
"(That's not a guarantee, however, as not everybody is filled with "good will", but regardless, you have no right to forcibly seize the property of even the greedy, cold-hearted person.) "
Again, you say working people have no right to do this, yet the the current property owner, owns that property from past intitiations of force. It is really convenient tenet to say "no initian of force", when the land has ALREADY been stolen.
"The Left has always had to resort to some type of physical force to achieve its goals, and always will. Why? Because they will never gain 100% support from the population. There will always be some individuals who simply say "No", and refuse to hand over their property/means of production."
Oh yeah, I'm not asking for this property. Of course capitalists won't volunraily give this up. It is interesting that capitalists demand their full 'volunatry' cooperation in giving this property back to workers, yet their property rights comes from past intiations of force to the people who were already communly using the land beforehand.
"Or maybe it is the individual who strays from true capitalism. Maybe people simply don't know what real capitalism is, and condemn something that they think is capitalism, but in reality is just a counterfeit"
Capitalism is the private ownersip of the means of production. It is quite a convenient argument to always say that 'bad' capitalists aren't 'real' capitalists'. I'm analogy still stands, you're doing the same thing marxists do.
Capitalism has been a robber baron system since the begining, their has never been this pie in the sky capitalism. It was born from the intiation of force, and is kept up through the state with force, this is why the nation state rioose along with capitalism.
I have to go work now, and couldn't spen mu
Here is alittle information on how 'volunatry' capitalism was to workers when it first started.
"How did working people view the rise of capitalism" (it's near the bottom, although the more of this page is relevant.) I recommend people to read this.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF8.html#secf86
Michael Moore and other rich people who criticize coporations aren't anti-capitalists. They are just seeing how poorer people aren't treated fairly by corporations. But never the less it is interesting that in the end they do benefit from them. But at least they know something needs to be done.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offense dude, really, but if you're going to have a discussion with me regarding capitalism, you need to be a little more coherent. Your paragraphs are filled with half-typed words and incomplete sentences. It's not exactly easy to follow your train-of-thought.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF8.html#secf86
Yes, you've posted this link in the past. It isn't any more impressive now than it was back then. The claims of "anarchists" are simply empty. Anarchists ultimately rely on a State enforcing their whims, just like everybody else.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM February 17th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
The defeat of Feminism will only be achieved by unity. Some of us are right wing, some left wing. We have different color, different religons, different nationalities. Our approach to defeating feminaziism differs. Some traditionalists believe we can revert to the pre-feminist society. Others believe men can only attain equality by abandoning the obligations of the traditional male role, as women have done.
However, at the end of the day , what unites us is that we are all men. We all recognise that we are third class citizens because of our gender. Frequently, discussions on mensactivism go off on a tangent over issues such as race, capitalism versus socialism etc. I think these dates are divisive and alter our focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:58 AM February 17th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Another typo! For "dates", read "debates". (possibly a Freudian slip).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure feminists love it when we argue amongst ourselves.
Let's get this thread back on track. (I take full responsibility for it going off on a tangent, due to my anti-Moore tirade. I apologize.) We can debate the merits (or lack thereof) of capitalism vs. socialism another day.
Let's get back to exposing feminism for what it is: extremism.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:33 PM February 17th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
ok, I agree. I just said what I said, so that other men such as myself who might stumble upon this site will not think the mens movement is really a capitalist men's movement. I do not think our disagreement is necessarily a bad thing, it shows that free thinking might be going on. If it were not for articles such as these by Glenn Sacks, and even Roy's response, and one or two other men who sometimes post here, I would feel that the mens movement has nothing to do with me and move on.
Don't make this stop you from posting what you feel like though. So far, I have the ability to reply back. I'm very impressed with this Mensactivist site, for it has never deleted my posts or even put it on the troll reply, even though some of my ideas are not so popular.
Even though I vehemently dissagree with you, and may not agree with everyone's views concerning gender, I'm still with you in trying to stop mysandry. And really, that's all that matters here, I hope.
"Let's get back to exposing feminism for what it is"
Well, then, since this thread is sorta about 'the working man'. I'll point out a hypocrisy from the feminists. They are always talking about this supposed gender 'pay' gap. Sometimes it's very large, sometimes not so large, but there it is, in our faces.
But, interestingly men also have an economic inequality. And that is the fact that men make up about 94% of all work related death,injuries, and sickness. There is also something from the Job Almanac that says men make up 24 of the 25 worst jobs. Yet it is women who get the attention for not only having this professed 'pay gap', but also that 'women' are in the very worst of jobs, and "something must be done about this immediately". It is feminists who claim to have solidarity with all peoples, and that they believe in "equality".
So, even if this pay gap were true, it still should be men who are given immediate attention, for it is their lives and health at stake. But feminists say nothing of this. When the left does speak of statistics of worker deaths and such, it is always labeled 'worker'. Never 'male'. I hardly think this would be the case if this were happening to women.
Women are given priority for their 'inequality's' of cash mo-nay. Yet, men's lives and health, well, we'll not speak of such things.
They have no solidarity with working class men.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But again and again, we get the same things happening from both clubs.
Well let's see. Looking at Stalin's 'club' and Mao's 'club' we see bodycounts in the MILLIONS, millions of their OWN CITIZENS killed by their OWN GOVERNMENT.
Some club! But hey, you know, we killed some Indians and there's some mob/union violence going on in freekin' Columbia so it's anybody's game, right? I mean, everything is relative and It's all good, right?
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:58 PM February 17th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"But hey, you know, we killed some Indians"
Ya, just something close of genocide for 'some' Indians, no biggy. Oh yeah, same with that slave trade thingy, or indentured servants from Europe. And of course all the workers who have died in terrible working conditions so others may profit. And, oh yeah, those Vietnamese. Oh and the million or so who've died from the Iraqi sanctions. Or you know, U.S. military/support for dictators such as Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in indonesia, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philipines, Columbia, supporting Pol Pot after the Vietnam war, or how bout US support of Saddam Hussien, how 'bout that pesky guy Osama that we trained to fight the Soviets back in the 80's. Or how 'bout the U.S. being the worlds biggest arms dealer?
Please read here, and look at some of these numbers.
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm#b
"there's some mob/union violence going on in freekin' Columbia so it's anybody's game, right? I mean, everything is relative and It's all good"
This isn't just Columbia, things like this happen all over the third world to workers. In fact terrorism and violence were used against workers of the past in this country as well.
Since we live in this country which is a capitalists govt., we only get information which is biased in favor of this system. No major news or govt. agency comes up with numbers which shows the deaths that can be attributed to capitalism. It would be a conflict of interest.
but, you know, I'm just an idiot.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:27 PM February 17th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Just so people know. I make a distinction between the govt., and it's people. And between those who control these things, and the majority of good people who don't.
I'am saying that I cannot exactly be labeled 'anti-american', because I'm not against the vast majority of the population.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you... represent when you make a post like this; I just don't know how to interpret it. I think it's going to be natural in countries where respect for the law is questionable to begin with. And I think that we in the U.S. aren't very far from such disregard ourselves. The instances you point out, well, I can't argue with their occurrence, but I would point out to you that they simply wouldn't happen without the tacit support of the government, and that because of this, they don't represent capitalism.
They represent lawlessness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:46 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't a lot of the damage to the environment caused by consumerism and companies trying to keep up with the demands of women as they shop and shop and shop etc ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:09 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting point.
One I hadn't thought of...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was it that said that the Greeks knew that "Materialism has the root of Mother in it"?
(Mater- = Matter and Mother)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:33 PM February 16th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn announced there was no target this week in our battle with David and Goliath. Why? Because he can't find any more retail outlets which sell their tee shirts!! Victory is sweet but frankly , as Churchill said , it is not the end or even the beginning of the end but perhaps the end of the beginning in the war against feminaziism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not prepared to do a "War Dance" and celebrate our Victory. Feminism is deeply ingrained in our culture and is waging war against Men, Children, Marriage and Families. I feel that it will come to violence eventually when Men fully wake up. I refuse to be polite or cowtow to the Feminist Monsters. I demand my civil rights. Tread on me and risk your life. I told my wife recently when she said something that I took exception with that I wanted my testicles back from her purse. If "she didn't like it don't let the door hit you on the ass going out". The dominant media culture is heavily promoting Feminism, attack Men's worth in our society and family. Men are tuning out of Network TV and the Bastards in charge don't seem to give a damn. I say contact their sponsors and begin a boycott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on this site:
http://www.moorewatch.com/comments.php?id=550_0_1_ 0_C
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
