The point is that he gets his biased information from factually unsubstantiated Right-wing blogs like.... David Horowitz Freedom Center Welcome, We are dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by leftist and Islamist enemies at home and abroad.
....as opposed to the the left which is dedicated to an indebted society where morals, culture & it's economic foundations are antiquated ideology?
I'm a laborer, and I'll share my recent laboring experience: Saturday: Gout flared. It wouldn't let me sleep, so I stayed up. Sunday morning: Called boss, said I'd be late...he asked how late, I said "Wednesday." Neither of us laughed lol Wednesday: Labored all day. Thursday: Labored all day. Back muscle revolted. Friday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Oh well. Saturday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Sunday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Monday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Tuesday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Wednesday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Thursday: Labored all day. Back muscle still revolting. Friday and Saturday: Back muscle still revolting. Oh well. Just thought I'd share.
What's my point? Oh, I thought we were celebrating the Communist/Socialist influence on the modern landscape of the Labor movement and it's frightening power over the American Democrat Party.
Umm.... no, not really. But if that's what you want to talk about, okay. So first of all, give us your definition of Communism and of Socialism.There's really nothing to talk about unless we understand what you mean by those terms. And then modern. What time frame are we talking about? Contemporary? As in now? Or by modern are you speaking more of an era? As in post WW II for example? Or beginning in the 1980s? I don't know. You tell me. By Labor Movement are you speaking in more or less traditional terms of organized unions or do you see a Labor Movement that encompasses more than that? And when you say, "it's [sic] frightening power" does "it" refer to Communist/Socialist influence? Or does "it" refer to the Labor Movement? Just want to be clear on that point. And by "Democrat" Party I assume you mean the Democratic Party. Want to make sure that there is not a "Democrat Party" out there that has put a burr under your saddle. If we are going to have a serious discussion about "the Communist/Socialist influence on the modern landscape of the Labor movement and it's frightening power over the American Democrat Party" we'll need to lay the basic groundwork. I won't necessarily dispute your terms, But I do need to know what they are. On the other hand if you simply want to toss out something that you found on a blog somewhere and call it good then that's okay too, but you need to be clear on that as well.
Yeah. All that. BTW: "Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) Now, don't you feel enlightened? So, to respond to your comment: YES! THERE IS A "DEMOCRAT PARTY" OUT THERE THAT HAS PUT A BURR UNDER MY SADDLE. It's the one in bed with the labor unions, in case you didn't know.
The words sound good to you so you start throwing them around. And everything is fine until someone asks you what they mean or at least how you define them and you can't answer. So we have gone from "the Communist/Socialist influence on the modern landscape of the Labor movement and it's frightening power over the American Democrat Party" to the Democratic Party is "the one in bed with the labor unions". You could have said only the latter and you would have had an honest post that people could discuss if they wanted to.
That one sentence right there exemplifies everything that is wrong with the Right-wing zombies in this country. Why do you think that the RNC's message the entire last week could be boiled down to "We built it" which relies on their unquestioning masses to never take them to task for talking a speech by Obama and putting an entirely different meaning to his point simply because Frank Luntz determined that it would play the best among their base. It says two things about them and their base. One, the Party leaders know their base intimately and do not respect them, and two, their base can be manipulated so easily that even obvious misrepresentations of the facts do not even seem to elicit the slightest "hey wait a minute" moment from them. The only other possibility left is that their base is just so self-interested beyond the point of rationality that they'd follow Satan himself to the gates of hell if he promised them a tax cut and damn the costs to everyone else. In any case, it is hard to have any degree of respect for any of them.
And then there are the left wing (appropriate slur) who only believe what (appropriate slur) pundits post. I listened to that speech or at least the "you didn't build that" section with significant areas on both sides. The entire point of that speech was that people CANNOT succeed without outside help particularly from the government. Exact quote - word for word!. Every bit of that is about not being self sufficient - success requiring other's help. I am sorry, but I thought of my patent. My teachers did not. The roads did not. The government did not. In fact the government tried its darnest to keep me from getting it. In fact, I paid for those roads, the teacher's salary, and even the government interference. So, no, I did build that. They did not build that.
Is anyone here surprised that David chose this reply? Did he miss the point? I can't tell if he understands what I wrote, and just chooses to be nasty, or not. David, you say I'm lazy. @#$% you. I'm in pain. My idea of taking a break at work means I might sit for part of it, or I might not. The heaviest lifting you do in a day is getting your ass out of bed. I move tons, by hand and back, in a day. The point, you ignorant little @#$% is that I'm not whining, I'm bragging...I know for a fact you couldn't handle what I do in a day, much less a lifetime.
Yes, his point was that we are all in this together. Businesses cannot succeed without an educated workforce. Businesses cannot succeed without an infrastructure to help create and get their products to the market. Businesses cannot safely ship their products overseas without the help of the U.S. military to protect the world's shipping lanes. Businesses rely on regulations that keep the guy in next town/country from dumping cheap products that put him out of business. Business rely on the police and firemen to both protect their businesses from crime and keep their business from burning to the ground. To turn all of those things into an obtuse message that neither reflects the reality of the speech nor addresses crucial issues of creating an environment where businesses are free to thrive thanks to the efforts of the entire country, can only be dismissed as the most cynical outlook ever conceived of by any political party ever to take any political stand. If businesses think it is so much better to live and work in an environment that doesn't have all of the advantages this country gives you, let them go start a business in Mexico or any other marginally developed country and see how well they thrive with that infrastructure. You and your party's beliefs denigrate every American that has worked long hours to give their children a better life. It defiles every soldier that has ever fought to keep this country free. It changes the American dream from We the People to Me the People. Not that any of this will actually sink in for you but the truth bears repeating for those people only influenced by repetitive messages.
Hey he would have developed and patented the same invention if he has been born and raised and was living in France or Iceland or Namibia or Maylaysia or Albania or Peru. The society in which you live has no bearing on these things, right? He is saying that America is irrelevant to his success. At least that's how I read it.
Facts in stead of opinion! http://listphobia.com/2009/11/02/10-most-friendly-countries-of-the-world/ OOPS!! Guess what? USA is not there! http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/medi...ts/annual-reports/english/db11-fullreport.pdf http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/07/be...siness-washington-best-countries-10_land.html
So you claim to be working now? How did that happen? When did that mysterious condition that kept you from working heal itself?
It runs concurrently with the maintenance manager job he had the did not pay minimum wage, the car that he was required to have insurance on but he did not own a car, etc. Does it really surprise you?
Hong Kong is under the control of a country that is ruled by a self-identified Communist party. Denmark, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway would, I"m guessing, qualify as Socialist countries by your standards. These are the countries that the Republicans seem to use when they hold up examples what they don't want America to become. Yet according to your list they are "the best countries for business".
