If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
JP wrote:
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message > ... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >> >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >>reward for a year's work. >> >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a >>worker, I can only say good luck to you. > > > > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at > their details). No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but less than twenty times more is typical. In the US it's 300 times more. At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad? |
Ads |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
"John Wallace" > wrote in message ... > JP wrote: > > "John Wallace" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>JP wrote: > >> > >> > >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. > >> > >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his > >>reward for a year's work. > >> > >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a > >>worker, I can only say good luck to you. > > > > > > > > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit > > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at > > their details). > > No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of > "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that > he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? Definately. > > In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the > average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but > less than twenty times more is typical. > > In the US it's 300 times more. > > At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad? Agreed. One of my "sore points" also, in the current day. Don't know if your numbers are correct, but that's irrelevant, as overall, the general situation does exist. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
JP wrote:
> I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths > under a UN Security Council sanction. Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of the operation. Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than they are? >>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under >>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now >>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even >>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or >>preventible disease. >> >>Are you ****ed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for >>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? >> >>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter >>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way >>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. > > > <laughter> > > Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but > whatever. In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as would be applied to yourself. > Btw, I'd be ****ed at myself for putting myself into the situation to > begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign > concept to you ? In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave them a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved them and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. So Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"? > Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming > anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say > the least. I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was scammed. > And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against > lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms, > which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. > Indeed, > the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more > efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of > military use. The UK proposed similiar items. Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. You can keep trying, but I'm not going to let you away with posting such lies. Back it up with facts and evidence. > Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the > sanctions existed in the first place ? I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die in their millions. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > Or how about this, the millions of > dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the > UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for > buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's > fault. Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. > Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow. |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
JP wrote:
>>Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own > beliefs. > > > No. I have no interest being told to prove something, when I wasn't the > one making the allegation. Do your own work, in other words. JP, you do realise that was NOT the assertion?! No-one asked you to prove anything. The question was whether you have any interest in challenging your own beliefs, or do you just read something and believe it forever, spouting it off ad infinitum. The question is clearly rhetorical, but feel free to have a crack at it anyway.... >>Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond >>"horse****" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you, >>and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are >>right. > > <shrug> Congrats. If you admire it, try it. >>I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to >>consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct >>information. >> >>Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear > > Would appear so. I hold others accountable for doing their own work, > you'd rather do it for them, it seems. No, I hold myself accountable for my beliefs, and therefore keep them factual and current. You prefer not to bother. > > |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
JP wrote:
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message > news > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>>"John Wallace" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>JP wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if >>> >>>not. >>> >>> >>>>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power >>>>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for >>>>two wars to get him out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Proof of this assertion ? >> >>The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the >>Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great >>victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi, >>Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA >>train". >> >>Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide >>and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From >>now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your >>own research. > > Now, you're getting the hang of it. Atta boy. No links of course, but > I'll take your word on it. So, I continue to post proof, no change there. >>Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up - >>ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself. > I already have the research. Just trying to get you to do it too for a > change. You're learning though. A good thing, eh ? You've backed up *nothing* with evidence so far - I have backed up everything whenever requested. I appreciate that you take my word for it, but then I've given you enough evidence that you could hardly do anything else. You've still got quite a bit of work to do before I take your word. > Oh, I get annoyed at very little in life. Just see no need to respond to > every bit of every message though, if I see no reason to. Simple concept > really. Yes, I'm familiar with it - the same as children eating a meal, they only take the bits they like. They need to be provided with education in order to learn that the bits they at first resist are really the parts that do them good and help them grow. Ironic how that applies mentally as well as physically. >>>>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein >>>>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though >>> >>> Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink> >> >>So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong? > > <wink> > You tell me. You stated it first, so you must have some idea, eh ? You were the one who took exception to a well known hyperbole, therefore I ask you reasoning (which once more you cannot provide. A familiar pattern though, you are consistent in your inability to respond. >>Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths >>of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE >>THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening >>in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly >>pilloried for it. > > Proof ? Consult your evidence, or look back at my previous posts. >>Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if >>five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell >>to pay. > > > > Who says no one gives a **** ? Don't see that anywhere in this thread. Never mind what people say, what are they DOING!??! Do you see any action at all? Have you done anything? So how should we construe that you give a f***? Again, if it were US kids, there would be riots on the streets. Look at the reaction of the US for less people than that killed ONCE in 9/11 - imagine that happening once a month, and all the victims being children. You not only see no reaction of similar magnitude, you see no reaction at all - your mainstream media doesn't even report it, nor does ours. As Martin Luther King said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
"John Wallace" > wrote in message ... > JP wrote: > > > I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths > > under a UN Security Council sanction. > > Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of > the operation. > > Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than > they are? Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their allegations of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were. > > >>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under > >>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now > >>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even > >>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or > >>preventible disease. > >> > >>Are you ****ed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for > >>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? > >> > >>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter > >>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way > >>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. > > > > > > <laughter> > > > > Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but > > whatever. > > In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or > shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as > would be applied to yourself. Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again. > > > Btw, I'd be ****ed at myself for putting myself into the situation to > > begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign > > concept to you ? > > In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave > them a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved > them and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. > So Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country > thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"? Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people" anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was constructed. Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions. > > > Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming > > anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say > > the least. > > I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've > explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil > companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per > YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was scammed. Oil/food scam ? Surely you've heard of it ? Btw, you never asked me before. Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don't know where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $ went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the various UN officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $. > > > And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against > > lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms, > > which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. > > Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred > immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for > Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not > allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. Wow, where were you during this time ? SH flaunted the *UN* sanctions for years, basically since the Gulf War ended, and continued to do so after 1997, when the oil/food program came into place. Anyway, here's two links to some general info. Just basic stuff from CNN and FOX. Those two are more or less opposites in philosophy, fyi. http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/m...nce/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/m...raq/index.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147435,00.html > > > Indeed, > > the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more > > efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of > > military use. The UK proposed similiar items. > > Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which > were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no > possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. Proof ? > > > Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the > > sanctions existed in the first place ? > > I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam > in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but > you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die > in their millions. Interesting that on one hand in this statement, you complain about the US leaving SH in power. Yet on the other, you complain now that the US has taken him out of power. Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain, which came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the *UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't have had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers listed ). I've never blamed things on the Iraqis. Show me where I did. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > > > Or how about this, the millions of > > dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the > > UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for > > buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's > > fault. > > Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. See the links above. For tip of the iceberg starters. Are you seriously saying the oil/food scam never happened ? You might want to let the Sec. General know that then, as he thinks it did. (and boy, if anyone should know....). > > > Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. > > My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same > tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow. Evidence ? So far, I've seen nothing but *your* opinions and theories. |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in
politics that the jury forgot what its job is. Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do. Just to be clear as to what your trying to argue about... The US is wrong and Saddam was right. The friends of Saddam that live inside the UN were getting rich off the blood of Iraqi children and somehow the US is at fault for killing millions during the sanctions?... You can call it what you want but Iraq is now in its own free hands and its up to them to join civilized society. Do you have such deep concern for the Iraqi people or is it blind hatred of GW and the US that has clouded your viewpoint? Maybe its a slanderous European media? I dont know but something is wholly wrong across the pond. Mitch "John Wallace" > wrote in message ... > JP wrote: > >> I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths >> under a UN Security Council sanction. > > Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of the > operation. > > Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than > they are? > >>>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under >>>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now >>>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even >>>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or >>>preventible disease. >>> >>>Are you ****ed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for >>>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? >>> >>>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter >>>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way >>>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. >> >> >> <laughter> >> >> Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but >> whatever. > > In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or shut > up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as would be > applied to yourself. > >> Btw, I'd be ****ed at myself for putting myself into the situation to >> begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign >> concept to you ? > > In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave them > a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved them > and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. So > Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country > thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"? > >> Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming >> anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to >> say >> the least. > > I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've > explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil > companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per > YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was > scammed. > >> And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted >> against >> lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions >> terms, >> which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. > > Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred immediately > after the resolution was passed. There was no time for Saddam to flaunt > the sanctions, because food and medicine were not allowed from the moment > the sanctions were introduced. > > > Indeed, >> the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more >> efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed >> of >> military use. The UK proposed similiar items. > > Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which > were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no > possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. > > You can keep trying, but I'm not going to let you away with posting such > lies. Back it up with facts and evidence. > >> Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that >> the >> sanctions existed in the first place ? > > I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam in > power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but you > can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die in > their millions. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They > didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > >> Or how about this, the millions of >> dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by >> the >> UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for >> buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the >> US's >> fault. > > Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. > >> Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. > > My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same > tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow. > |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy
Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone. Mitch "John Wallace" > wrote in message ... > JP wrote: >> "John Wallace" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>JP wrote: >>> >>> >>>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >>> >>>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >>>reward for a year's work. >>> >>>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a >>>worker, I can only say good luck to you. >> >> >> >> <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a >> profit >> isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked >> at >> their details). > > No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of > "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that he > couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? > > In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the average > salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but less than > twenty times more is typical. > > In the US it's 300 times more. > > At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad? |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the
US.... Mitch "John Wallace" > wrote in message ... > Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have no > idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep yourself > out of a discussion. > > I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you will > never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that in mind > you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful discussions are > those that elicit sufficient quality of response that you can challenge > your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself. That at least is > what I hope for. > > Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding >> the quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been >> created in that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? >> Let's just say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of >> Western Europe has in the past 20 years. >> >> >> The truth comes out: Socialist >> >> Bill Bollinger >> www.gsxn.com >> >> >> >> >> "John Wallace" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >>> >>>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's >>>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the >>>>brooding and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use >>>>*way, *way* more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. >>>>Booohoooooooo!" >>>> >>>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand >>>>and Availability. LOL!!! >>>> >>>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans >>>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I >>>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! >>>> >>>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where >>>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not >>>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices >>>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US >>>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are >>>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore >>>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do. >>> >>>Amen, well said. >>> >>>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when >>>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by >>>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan >>>government, etc. >>> >>>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry >>>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is >>>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after >>>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but >>>money is money, y'know... >> >> |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Al Qaeda" does not exist | Awake | BMW | 64 | March 10th 05 12:25 PM |
99 Cobra cracked ring | cgun | Ford Mustang | 10 | February 22nd 05 05:33 PM |
Anyone heard the new NFL Ring tones? | [email protected] | Driving | 4 | January 11th 05 02:40 PM |
cause of broken ring gear teeth | RLGIRSCH | 4x4 | 0 | October 11th 04 09:05 PM |