View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard, I've pointed this out here in the past, but it's worth repeating. I used to do business in Alabama with a large small business (about 260 employees) specializing in high tech beryllium machining. They are arguably the world leader in this type of manufacturing. I went there often, and I had the opportunity to see and review their whole plant during and after working hours. You know, they didn't have a single black person working there, not even a token black janitor. It's not that blacks didn't live in the community, because I saw them. The situation was clearly uncanny, especially since a multi-racial workplace is readily accepted and, common today.
On one trip I had breakfast at a restaurant less than a 1/4 mile away from the firm. After eating I went to the restroom. Upon entering there was an older black man was finishing up and leaving, and in passing I said hi and casually asked how he was doing. The look on his face was telling. This kind of casual friendly greeting was not normal, and it definitely surprised him. He looked down said nothing, and quickly moved on.
Lastly, another thing that was quite unusual in a workplace environment is that there was considerable evidence of devout Christian activities amongst the employees. There was information posted on bulletin boards throughout the plant concerning Christian meetings and worship groups that would occur during lunch breaks and after work. Not the kind of thing one normally sees in the workplace. I found it ironic that in such a strong Christian environment, that segregation was so apparent.
Regarding Herman Cain, his past simply caught up to him. I find it hard to believe that he was so stupid to think that he could run for president with so much negative baggage in his wake. While you conveniently target liberals for taking him down, that's not even close to the mark. The guy wasn't even close to being presidential material, and most credible Republicans in the power stream knew that. In my view, it's a wonder that he got as far as he did. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
capetonian
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 1197 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | Cap--you are right about trucking and airlines--deregulation (of fares, not of safety) was a big plus for consumers. But the problem with doctrinaire libertarianism is it celebrates the wins but pretends the losses didn't occur. such as the milking of California by Enron--before Enron imploded, and the milking of everyone in the sub-prime fiasco before everybody imploded. You need to learn both lessons. |
Agreed, a certain level of government interference is required to prevent capitalism destroying itself/their customers. Since neither of the two parties seem to have found the right balance we are destined to seesaw between too much regulation and too little regulation, much like the tides will continue to come in and go out. I'm praying for rational government in the future, but not expecting it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Capetonian said: Quote: | Agreed, a certain level of government interference is required to prevent capitalism destroying itself/their customers. Since neither of the two parties seem to have found the right balance we are destined to seesaw between too much regulation and too little regulation, much like the tides will continue to come in and go out. I'm praying for rational government in the future, but not expecting it. |
Got that one right. But I think the answer is in participation. Rather than pretend that government will get better by bringing in outsiders (experience has taught us that just strengthens the hand of lobbyists), people need to become informed about what government does, and try to improve it. It is as important, and difficult, to cut an outdated regulation as it is to establish one to protect public health. The moderate Republicans used to be very good at this stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The GOP has banished moderates who still actually strongly support the Party platform. We are now referred to as Independents, for failing to become Rented Republicans in the image of Gingrich. In many ways he is the father of the modern GOP.
If you don't know what I mean check out his comments that those in Congress who support Freddie Mac should be arrested. He has recently been working for them as a lobbyist for $30K/mo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama 49
NEWT 43
Oh shit! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
capetonian wrote: | Since neither of the two parties seem to have found the right balance we are destined to seesaw between too much regulation and too little regulation, much like the tides will continue to come in and go out. I'm praying for rational government in the future, but not expecting it. |
Not when a dozen selected Super-Ideologues can't even find the childishly simple solution to their charter, one they should have passed on Day 2: The Dems should have cut expenses by half of the $1.2T and the GOP should have raised taxes by their half of the $1.2T. Considering that their assignment involved such a trivial percentage of our debt and deficit, who cares? Git 'er done, move on, and get back to work on the other 92% of the debt and the mind-boggling deficit.
Why Day 2? Because they needed a day to posture, including 12 speeches on why each member wasn't going to give an inch.
I am MUCH more frightened that Obama's declared 2012 campaign mantra is "Fairness", which he very often defines as wealth redistribution (many speeches, particularly the 2008 ABC debate where he said wealth redistribution was more important than revenues ... i.e., reducing the deficit). IOW, his new mantra is "Marxism".
Yeah. Vote for that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: |
I am MUCH more frightened that Obama's declared 2012 campaign mantra is "Fairness", which he very often defines as wealth redistribution (many speeches, particularly the 2008 ABC debate where he said wealth redistribution was more important than revenues ... i.e., reducing the deficit). IOW, his new mantra is "Marxism".
Yeah. Vote for that. |
Let's redistribute your disability check to the Koch brothers. They certainly have a greater need for those dollars than you do, and they deserve them more, too. After all, they're "job creators" and you're not.
Don't you agree? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|