He seems to be socialist to me, but that hardly makes him Stalinist. But then communist = anti-American right, so no point clarifying the issue.
Buy on AliExpress.com
World's newest state (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter The Arif
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
That article that joe5 posted, it's a complete nonsense IMO.
This is a joke right? Albanians were christians until the 13th century, when Ottomans (Turks) came to Balkans and invaded Albania. They tried to spread the Islamism around those parts, and they succedeed in a way because most of Albanians are Muslims now.
First we were brought from Sicily to fight with serbs and then we asked serbs to stay on that land? LOL.
One of the greatest proofs that we're not descendants of the Illyrians is the Turkish name for us? I don't have much to say, but read the first of my previous post.
This is a joke right? Albanians were christians until the 13th century, when Ottomans (Turks) came to Balkans and invaded Albania. They tried to spread the Islamism around those parts, and they succedeed in a way because most of Albanians are Muslims now.
First we were brought from Sicily to fight with serbs and then we asked serbs to stay on that land? LOL.One of the greatest proofs that we're not descendants of the Illyrians is the Turkish name for us? I don't have much to say, but read the first of my previous post.
the same way everyone of my generation's parents were communists 
I asked you because ( i asume) you come from a muslim family and i don't see very often an atheist with muslim roots. So i thought if the cause of your atheism was maybe communism, since we know the communist view on religion.
Science made an atheist out of me also, but i know few fellow atheists of mine who became atheists because of comrade Karl Marx
I do support our soccer team...plus I am a baseball fan (America's pasttime)...actually I am a Yankees fan to be precise, and am a disheartened Bills fan, so yes, I do like our sports
I have no issues with the way we handle terrorism, in fact, maybe we arent tough enough. So many democrats are against us using torture to get info out of terror suspects...maybe we should just put them up at the Hilton in the penthouse, and maybe they'll gladly talk to us
I have no issues with the way we handle terrorism, in fact, maybe we arent tough enough. So many democrats are against us using torture to get info out of terror suspects...maybe we should just put them up at the Hilton in the penthouse, and maybe they'll gladly talk to us
Torture? So I assume you think water-boarding isn't torture. You would, wouldn't you. In case you don't remember, torture is forbidden by the Geneva Convention. But I'm sure you don't care anyway, just like our government. We have been breaking rules and ethics for years now, so yeah, lets start sawing Arab's teeth off.
You aren't neutral on this issue. If you were, you would fault our government for our stance and actions in the region and wouldn't label Noam Chomsky a retard.
Yeah, Iraq is so much better today. I'm sure they all love our freedom efforts in spite of the fact we single-handedly killed thousands of civilians while ushering in all sorts of terrorist organizations.
Like invading a country for oil while saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Come on here. Our government used 9/11 to finish up the job Georgie's dumbfuck father couldn't finish in the 90's while lying to the American people in the process. They continue to lie and fool people like yourself.
Say... what?You're the one who labeled Chomsky a retard because his view doesn't converge with yours. Yes, that does make you entirely unreasonable. I'm sorry for that fact.
It shouldn't exist.
There isn't any evidence that proves the government had no part in it. After all these lies we continue to see come out from under the woodwork, who knows what else we'll hear.
Many are like Halliburton though. Ask people in Detroit what they think of our great automobile makers. And we can thank Regan for the crisis there.
Corporations are rife with abuses. But at the same time, they're an easy target. People will shit in someone's backyard and won't think twice. But when a big, bad, faceless corporation dumps something, it's moral outrage with no connection of personal actions.
One of the alarming trends I see right now that I really hate is the whole bullshit corporate responsibility movement. Not that I want to defend corporations, I just don't want to cover for governments for failing to do their jobs. Business needs to be in the business of, well, business. And that means trying to create and do crap so people can have reasonable jobs to do it, society can progress, etc. It's not a noble cause, it's a necessary one.
The problem with all these corporate responsibility wanks is that they want everyone in business to effectively run side charities, and none of them recognize the inherent and necessary social good achieved by a business trying to achieve business ends. So corporations are now trying to dance around and tell us how green they are, and how they take care of their employees or people in the third world, or whatnot. That's either the job of charitable giving or proper government regulation and enforcement -- or both.
If part of the mission of business becomes social welfare, who the hell is minding the store? We'll all end up flinging our feces at walls in our caves, but we'll feel good about how our choice of a now bankrupt phone company helped the blind. And as an investor, I laugh at all these ridiculous "socially responsible" stocks and mutual funds. How lazy do you have to be to have to turn to some corporation to do your own charitable giving for you? Or to take care of your lack of government action for you when you don't even vote?
Businesses, for efficiency, should basically be in the business of making the maximum profit within the legal rules and regulations set by government -- whether social, environmental, whatever. Then the extra money from all those efficiencies can be voluntarily contributed into whatever additional social or environmental programs of your choice. Having companies try to run a profit business and then give back through the back door is putting the mission on them to do two different things, and consumers should get off their asses and have the freedom, and discipline, to choose how they spend those charitable dollars.
"Buy our product and we'll donate $5 to breast cancer." WTF? How about give me a product $5 cheaper and I give whatever money I want from what's left over in the best way possible?
One of the alarming trends I see right now that I really hate is the whole bullshit corporate responsibility movement. Not that I want to defend corporations, I just don't want to cover for governments for failing to do their jobs. Business needs to be in the business of, well, business. And that means trying to create and do crap so people can have reasonable jobs to do it, society can progress, etc. It's not a noble cause, it's a necessary one.
The problem with all these corporate responsibility wanks is that they want everyone in business to effectively run side charities, and none of them recognize the inherent and necessary social good achieved by a business trying to achieve business ends. So corporations are now trying to dance around and tell us how green they are, and how they take care of their employees or people in the third world, or whatnot. That's either the job of charitable giving or proper government regulation and enforcement -- or both.
If part of the mission of business becomes social welfare, who the hell is minding the store? We'll all end up flinging our feces at walls in our caves, but we'll feel good about how our choice of a now bankrupt phone company helped the blind. And as an investor, I laugh at all these ridiculous "socially responsible" stocks and mutual funds. How lazy do you have to be to have to turn to some corporation to do your own charitable giving for you? Or to take care of your lack of government action for you when you don't even vote?
Businesses, for efficiency, should basically be in the business of making the maximum profit within the legal rules and regulations set by government -- whether social, environmental, whatever. Then the extra money from all those efficiencies can be voluntarily contributed into whatever additional social or environmental programs of your choice. Having companies try to run a profit business and then give back through the back door is putting the mission on them to do two different things, and consumers should get off their asses and have the freedom, and discipline, to choose how they spend those charitable dollars.
"Buy our product and we'll donate $5 to breast cancer." WTF? How about give me a product $5 cheaper and I give whatever money I want from what's left over in the best way possible?
let me shed a bit more light on this. if i am not mistaken, it was marx who coined the idea of having "workers control the means of production". i think that idea is great, but the communists kinda ruined it and ensured that it would never materialize, at least in north america. Now, i am a little sour on this idea, because my application for an "internship" to one of these employee-owned companies got rejected.
that would be correct. but the canada has such a sorry excuse for a socialist party, that i'd rather not be affiliated with them. fuck even their leader looks like stalin.
Didn't most of these good ideas come from socialism ? If so, doesn't that make you simply a socialist ?
Definitely Greggor. Great post. The notion that people would ask business to regulate itself is absurd. That is the responsibility of the government. When businesses take thousands of jobs overseas to get cheaper wages and higher profits, should we blame the businesses for acting like businesses? No. I tend to blame the government for not making the businesses want to keep jobs in the US. The same thing can be said about pollution. It's the government's job to make businesses no want to pollute, through incentives, tax cuts or whatever.