Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/22/05 01:35 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: There have been many programs listed on the WalMart issue. There have also been many books/articles written as well. As for the internet, how many employees will surf the net to find sites where a few employees posted, "Let's make a Union!" IMO, these methods are not efficient.

If the employees aren't going to try to start a union, why should they get one? Obviously they lack to motivation. The methods are incredibly efficient, they just depend that some employees will take a little bit of initiative. Clearly the wal-mart employees are paid well enough so that they don't care enough to start a union.

Again... lose cashier jobs to people outside the country? Now, as the Beef-ster pointed out, the stores might close down and open shop in these countries. What would be so wrong about that? It would make room for the stores with Unions to expand and fill the void once more people shop at their stores.

You ignored the point entirely. I can only assume you conceed that the unions will make the workers much more lazy. However, thats beside the point. Look at airlines. Northwest and Delta both just went bankrupt, unions paid a huge part of that. Northwest workers were just getting ready to strike AGAIN when they went bankrupt. Unions have to exist independantly, they have enough power as it is.

Human Rights cover so many aspects of a society, you can't make them mean nothing. So are we only to talk and strive to conquer the "major human rights issues"? I'm trying to find a resolution or possibly an explanation to our countries poverty rate. Is that not important?

What? Thats not even a reply. You can too make the term mean nothing. If some day car insurance is considered a human right, nobody will pay attention to the word anymore, and rightfully so, being that it now comes to mean even luxuries.

If you find it annoying and retarded, then do yourself a favour. Don't post/read these threads. I'm not forcing you to read my opinions, am I? If you don't like the topic, go to another thread.

Eh? That sounds alot like 'if you don't like America, leave it." If you can't handle your use of words being critisized, then why don't you leave? Hmm?

Yeah, you're right. Let's do nothing about it. That way, we can ensure that things will never change for the better. I also find it humorous that you say "I never said it was bad", but then go on to explain why it's a bad thing. lol

Wow, it's like your not even reading. If the wal-mart employees only have enough motivation to get 20 employees together at a time to start a Union, things are fine. Wal-mart doesn't need to be changed for the better, other things do, but wal-mart doesn't. The employees are paid crappy because the work they do requires no skill. Anyone not supporting a family can live very well off of wal-mart salary.

Also, your attitude of "they need to do it themselves" is pretty lame. There are so many positive changes that have happened in the past, because people outside of the circumstance stepped in. Anything from slavery to international poverty. Apathy is the worst enemy to human advancement.

Oh yeah, no backlash came from starting a war to stop slavery. Besides the south being economically crippled for 100 years, and even after that having continued problems. And besides the overpowering racism that continues to this day because of the above. Yeah, besides that, everything turned out great. Slavery was declining, it would have been much better for it to have diminished without a war.

And international poverty? Hmm... nope, can't think of a single country that has been taken out of poverty by international aid. In fact, I can think of several that are given several times thier GDP in aid every year.

---

I would like to know exactly what he means by "human rights". I really dont see any human rights violations committed by WalAMrt to the employees in its stores. So what, it doesnt provide health insurance, thousands of employers dont provide it. Child Care, most employers its safe to say dont provide child care. Im pretty sure WalMArt adhears to labour standards (breaks, overtime etc).

WalMart is by no means a slave driver, an oppressor of human rights. Try going to sub-sraha Africa and see how bad you got it.

---

At 7/30/05 08:18 PM, _FLAGG wrote:

At 7/30/05 08:15 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/30/05 07:33 PM, _FLAGG wrote: That's like asking an ant to fight an elephant.

That's the point. The elephant offers us a better deal...while the ant just gets in the way.

Yes, but since an elephant is afraid of a mouse(or in this case an ant), it shows that Walmart moves in and crushes all "competition" because it doesn't want anyone to "compete" with them. it's sick really

---

At 7/30/05 08:32 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/30/05 08:18 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Wal-Mart has better prices, and better selection than almost every Ma and Pa in America. This means they are the leader of competitive business. This is a good thing. If no one can compete, it means no one has lower prices/fantastic selection.
This is just simple economics. The better companies rise to the top, via the support of consumers.

Yes, but some people like to think of the consequences. Box stores like Wal-Mart pay dirt wages - other stores follow suit to "stay competitive." Wal-Mart buys shoddy crap from China at cheap prices - others follow suit, independent stores go out of business, pretty soon you devastate American industry. Hey, why not, let's continue. These unemployed (unskilled) workers, who use to make good money in factories, now are forced to work other, less desirable jobs (say, Wal-Mart). Now they can only afford to shop there.

Wal-Mart buys it's items in bulk so it can charge less than, let's say, Bob, who had to buy less because he's not as big, therefore he paid less actually, but more in the sense of how much he's getting for his $$$. Then once Wal-Mart starts making more and more profits they can charge less and less, continuing to buy even more in bulk. It continues along as Wal-Mart builds stores everywhere and they make more and buy more and so on... Just sit down with a catalog of stuff some time and compare the prices with those of Wal-Mart. It's a perfect example.

---

At 9/23/05 09:26 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Why would one open a new store if they will loose money?

*rubs temples*

I'm not saying that building a store costs a lot of dough. What does, is buying all the merchandise and hiring on more staff. This only contributes to the problem of WalMart not being able to afford the expenses of a union... THEY KEEP GROWING! Yes, it opens more jobs, but more jobs that will leave a large piece of the populace earning under the standards of living. And the more they hire on, the harder it will be for them to create a better work environment for their staff. Also, if they are able to open THAT many stores in a matter of 9 months, it just means they are moving in and replacing other stores that are in the area, mostly ones that are independantly owned, along with the the "competitor stores" which provide better wage/benefits than WalMart. What happens to the people that work in these stores? Well, the ones that work at a place like Zellers then have to work in the new Walmart, doing basically the same thing they were doing before, only getting the raw end of the deal; Especially employees who were earning a good pay due to time spent working at the old store (the longer you work, the more pay increases you get).

At 9/23/05 06:13 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: WalMart is by no means a slave driver, an oppressor of human rights. Try going to sub-sraha Africa and see how bad you got it.

Rugby, I already addressed this issue when confronted by it a page ago, when I said:
"And FYI, "basic pay" and "health benefits" aren't the bare minimum of human rights. I'm saying, that if we can see that it's achievable in other retail stores (or companies in general), then it should be. What would be so bad about it if it were to happen?"

Also, comparing Africa and America is laughable. Let's look at the two economies... hmmm. I wonder which one you would suspect would have better work standards. Let's look at how stable both countries are (although the recent hurricanes are rattling things up a bit). Let's look at how technologically advanced both cultures are.

Now, am I saying that because of this, we should forget about Africa and solely focus on America. Fuck no. I'm saying that it's possible to try and make the number of people living under the poverty line in America lower, while at the same time we can focus on Africa and help them out. Multi-tasking is quite a gift if you have it.

---

At 9/23/05 05:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: If the employees aren't going to try to start a union, why should they get one? Obviously they lack to motivation. The methods are incredibly efficient, they just depend that some employees will take a little bit of initiative. Clearly the wal-mart employees are paid well enough so that they don't care enough to start a union.

...

Jim, if that were true, then why have there been attempts to form Unions? What happened to the stores that ended up facing a Union on their hands? If you know incredibly efficient methods of making a solution, do share; I would like to hear them.

You ignored the point entirely. I can only assume you conceed that the unions will make the workers much more lazy. However, thats beside the point. Look at airlines. Northwest and Delta both just went bankrupt, unions paid a huge part of that. Northwest workers were just getting ready to strike AGAIN when they went bankrupt. Unions have to exist independantly, they have enough power as it is.

No, don't try and change your own argument. Why would unions make the employees more lazy?

Could the airlines be going out of business for other reasons? You don't suppose it's because of the economy or society, do you? The fact that the travel industry in general has taken a huge hit? The fact that there are so many airline companies that there simply isn't a large enough demand for the available supply? No, you're right. The huge focus should be on Unions. THAT'S what was one of the major causes.

What? Thats not even a reply. You can too make the term mean nothing. If some day car insurance is considered a human right, nobody will pay attention to the word anymore, and rightfully so, being that it now comes to mean even luxuries.

Making an income reach over the poverty line is considered a luxary? Having health benefits that allow you to take the time off of work in case of serious injury/illness to get better, which enables you to return to work faster, without going bankrupt is a luxary? These sound more like means of aiding the american public/society to maintain rather than providing them luxaries. Maybe that's just me.

Eh? That sounds alot like 'if you don't like America, leave it." If you can't handle your use of words being critisized, then why don't you leave? Hmm?

You were the one who was bitching and complaining. And reading a politics thread on NG is very much like moving out of a country, thanks for sharing that perfect resemblance. And I don't mind having my views criticized. I enjoy it. I learn new things, and adapt new ways of viewing the world when I might have the wrong idea about something, or just didn't know about it before.

Wow, it's like your not even reading. If the wal-mart employees only have enough motivation to get 20 employees together at a time to start a Union, things are fine. Wal-mart doesn't need to be changed for the better, other things do, but wal-mart doesn't. The employees are paid crappy because the work they do requires no skill. Anyone not supporting a family can live very well off of wal-mart salary.

Oh phew... so in order to work at WalMart you have to live with no financial burdens and responsibilities. Well then, I'm sure that makes up a huge chunk of the full-time employees that work there (and thank goodness for that, because if a single mother needs to take up a job, and one of the only places to hire her is WalMart, she'd be pretty screwed!... but that would never happen in real life).

Oh yeah, no backlash came from starting a war to stop slavery. Besides the south being economically crippled for 100 years, and even after that having continued problems. And besides the overpowering racism that continues to this day because of the above. Yeah, besides that, everything turned out great. Slavery was declining, it would have been much better for it to have diminished without a war.

.... LMFAO!!!!! First guy I have EVER met that thinks the civil war was a bad idea.
And to think that you believe that a war is going to resolve long-standing bigotry and resolve all issues revolving around that... LOL!!!!!!
Ah Jimbo, that had to be the dumbest/funniest thing you have ever said. Thanks for the laugh.

.... *happy sigh* Alright. In all seriousness, what makes you believe that things would have naturally gotten better for slaves without the intervention of other groups? Sure, the North disapproved of slavery, but the South relied on slavery to keep it afloat, and was making big profits.

However, in the end, negotiations were of no avail, and action had to be taken. And in the present day, you think that things would be better had there been no war whatsoever, or any action taken on behalf of the North to intervene? Well, that's hard to disprove, so I guess it's all opinion.

And international poverty? Hmm... nope, can't think of a single country that has been taken out of poverty by international aid. In fact, I can think of several that are given several times thier GDP in aid every year.

Ah, so no aid is better than some. Gotcha.
Improvements mean absolutely nothing of course. Only when something is perfect, has it truly made a difference.

Thanks Jim, anytime I hear something about "these people are dying" or, "there are mass genocides happening in this country", I'm just gonna turn my head and pretend it's not there. That way, I can just go about living a happy, ignorant, little life. I assume that's working well for you?

---

At 9/24/05 01:08 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Jim, if that were true, then why have there been attempts to form Unions? What happened to the stores that ended up facing a Union on their hands? If you know incredibly efficient methods of making a solution, do share; I would like to hear them.

Half assed attempts, attempts quickly given up at any sign of resistance. You don't need an efficient method, in all of history you have never needed an efficient method, you just need some motivation on the workers part.

No, don't try and change your own argument. Why would unions make the employees more lazy?

Thats exactly what I just explained.... They demand more money for the same amount of work.

Could the airlines be going out of business for other reasons? You don't suppose it's because of the economy or society, do you? The fact that the travel industry in general has taken a huge hit? The fact that there are so many airline companies that there simply isn't a large enough demand for the available supply? No, you're right. The huge focus should be on Unions. THAT'S what was one of the major causes.

Yes it is. Northwest was just under threat of a strike when it went bankrupt. Northwest has had several strikes in the past. Anyone who knows anything about the airline business will tell you the biggest obstacle in turning a profit is the unions.

Making an income reach over the poverty line is considered a luxary? Having health benefits that allow you to take the time off of work in case of serious injury/illness to get better, which enables you to return to work faster, without going bankrupt is a luxary? These sound more like means of aiding the american public/society to maintain rather than providing them luxaries. Maybe that's just me.

Yes they are luxuries. You can live without them, very well often at that. I know several people below the poverty line who have lots of luxuries. And there are several million people without healthcare who are living perfectly fine.

You were the one who was bitching and complaining. And reading a politics thread on NG is very much like moving out of a country, thanks for sharing that perfect resemblance. And I don't mind having my views criticized. I enjoy it. I learn new things, and adapt new ways of viewing the world when I might have the wrong idea about something, or just didn't know about it before.

Thats not even a rebuttal. You just basically said 'no you are incorrect' with no argument to back it up.

Oh phew... so in order to work at WalMart you have to live with no financial burdens and responsibilities. Well then, I'm sure that makes up a huge chunk of the full-time employees that work there (and thank goodness for that, because if a single mother needs to take up a job, and one of the only places to hire her is WalMart, she'd be pretty screwed!... but that would never happen in real life).

Wait so now wal-mart has to be responsible for other peoples mistakes? No, that makes no sense at all. If a single mother is having problems living on her wage, wal-mart shouldn't be forced to give everyone a better salary because of that, she should apply for welfare. And again, obviously people with financial burdens are in short supply at wal-mart, since if they weren't they would have got off thier ass and made a union by now.

.... LMFAO!!!!! First guy I have EVER met that thinks the civil war was a bad idea.
And to think that you believe that a war is going to resolve long-standing bigotry and resolve all issues revolving around that... LOL!!!!!!
Ah Jimbo, that had to be the dumbest/funniest thing you have ever said. Thanks for the laugh.

You must be very new to politics, because this is a very prolific opinion, I'm not the only one to share it, espescially not on this forum.

.... *happy sigh* Alright. In all seriousness, what makes you believe that things would have naturally gotten better for slaves without the intervention of other groups? Sure, the North disapproved of slavery, but the South relied on slavery to keep it afloat, and was making big profits.

The north relied on slavery too, cotton was 60% of all exports. What makes me think things would have gotten better is the fact that things were getting better, the slave trade was stopped, several new laws were passed which reduced slavery across the country. Eventually it would become too expensive to have slaves, sharecropping was much more cost efficient, which was proven post-civil war.

However, in the end, negotiations were of no avail, and action had to be taken. And in the present day, you think that things would be better had there been no war whatsoever, or any action taken on behalf of the North to intervene? Well, that's hard to disprove, so I guess it's all opinion.

I never said that. It would have been better if the south never seceeded, the secession was in itself an intervention. And as for that, the north didn't intervene, the south attacked the north.

Ah, so no aid is better than some. Gotcha.
Improvements mean absolutely nothing of course. Only when something is perfect, has it truly made a difference.

What improvement? I don't see things really getting better. The money we give often just ends up funding the next war. So now instead of people living in shacks and shanties we have people living in buildings but now fighting wars over who controls them.

Thanks Jim, anytime I hear something about "these people are dying" or, "there are mass genocides happening in this country", I'm just gonna turn my head and pretend it's not there. That way, I can just go about living a happy, ignorant, little life. I assume that's working well for you?

This isn't about genocide, genocide, just like secession, is in itself an intervention. However, I do find it funny your comparing wal-mart employees inability to form a union with genocide.

---

I think the civil war was a shitty idea. Why is it the US looks down on other countries when they have civil wars, and in cases even tries to intervien somehow, yet they had one themselves, add to that the war for independence.

War is never the solution, even if its over something liek slavery.

---

At 9/24/05 12:37 PM, Jimsween wrote: You don't need an efficient method, in all of history you have never needed an efficient method, you just need some motivation on the workers part.

Yes, we all know that change requires action. That isn't a method, that's just something that determines the resolution behind a method. I want to hear a simple, effective method that could achieve Unionization of a multi-billion dollar company.

Thats exactly what I just explained.... They demand more money for the same amount of work.

Usually workers are motivated by money. If you give them more money, they are likely to work harder to earn it. You -may- see an increase in productivity.

Yes it is. Northwest was just under threat of a strike when it went bankrupt. Northwest has had several strikes in the past. Anyone who knows anything about the airline business will tell you the biggest obstacle in turning a profit is the unions.

So if there have been multiple strikes, wouldn't that be sufficient warning to the CEO's that, "hey, if we don't listen, we could go out of business". Aaaand yes, my uncle works for Air Canada, which does have a Union.

Yes they are luxuries. You can live without them, very well often at that. I know several people below the poverty line who have lots of luxuries. And there are several million people without healthcare who are living perfectly fine.

And which demographic are you looking at? Are you looking at the people who are fairly well off, young/middle aged, and healthy (ie. Teenagers). What about those who do need that work at Walmart for years, and who would actually benefit?

Thats not even a rebuttal. You just basically said 'no you are incorrect' with no argument to back it up.

Jim... wtf are you talking about? You said, "That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'." That is your opinion. What am I supposed to back up here? I'm supposed to back up your opinion, or back up the fact that you feel that way? Tell you what, when I read a book titled, "Jimsween and his opinions and views on politics", I'll have something to back up this "rebuttal". (??? lol)

Wait so now wal-mart has to be responsible for other peoples mistakes? No, that makes no sense at all. If a single mother is having problems living on her wage, wal-mart shouldn't be forced to give everyone a better salary because of that, she should apply for welfare. And again, obviously people with financial burdens are in short supply at wal-mart, since if they weren't they would have got off thier ass and made a union by now.

With what plan??? You say "oh, it's so damned easy they must be lazy", and yet attempts have been made in recent history, and so far, none of them have worked. Since you're such a brainchild and can see the simplicity of the situation, I want to hear a game-plan that will work for them.

And did you ever take the time to consider that single mothers are usually BUSY AS HELL trying to raise a family on their own? I was in such a family, and the reason why we ended up in that situation was not my mother's fault whatsoever, aside from the fact that she married a man who ended up having to leave (notice how I said "had to", not "chose to"). Sometimes, things happen in people's lives that worsen thier life condition, and it's out of their control. You'll find that out when you age a few more years young man.

You must be very new to politics, because this is a very prolific opinion, I'm not the only one to share it, espescially not on this forum.

Enh, been in politics (BBS) for about a year and a half. I guess that's new compared to the mods and regs. New to politics though? Not quite. Ever since I was of age to vote, I did vote. And, even before that, I was a bit of a political observer. If you're talking about the recent thread that was made on the civil war, you'll see that even people from the south agree that the war had to happen, due to the fact that negotiations were of no avail.

The north relied on slavery too, cotton was 60% of all exports. What makes me think things would have gotten better is the fact that things were getting better, the slave trade was stopped, several new laws were passed which reduced slavery across the country. Eventually it would become too expensive to have slaves, sharecropping was much more cost efficient, which was proven post-civil war.

You, kinda contradict yourself. You say that trends were changing, even though the ones who were fighting for the cause (the North) relied on slavery. As for the slave trade, of course it was coming to an end... there were no more need for slaves in the US, they were already abundant. That doesn't stop them from selling the product or using it for themselves. Also, the civil war was about treason as well, not JUST slavery.

I never said that. It would have been better if the south never seceeded, the secession was in itself an intervention. And as for that, the north didn't intervene, the south attacked the north.

You're the one who linked up "slavery" to "American civil war". Not me buddy. I never said anything about sucessions. That has more to do with economics than Human Rights IMO.

What improvement? I don't see things really getting better. The money we give often just ends up funding the next war. So now instead of people living in shacks and shanties we have people living in buildings but now fighting wars over who controls them.

And where would they be if there was no aid at all? Is it aid that creates the wars, or were they there to begin with.

This isn't about genocide, genocide, just like secession, is in itself an intervention. However, I do find it funny your comparing wal-mart employees inability to form a union with genocide.

I'm not. I never made that comparison. I said human rights envellops many aspects, from small to large issues. Ending poverty is a human rights issue, no? I'm simply making a correlation that could explain the rise in the poor populace in America. If you can find hard evidence that goes against my theory, then my theory could be wrong (that's what theories are for, to offer an explanation that may or may not be true).

---

At 9/24/05 10:17 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: I think the civil war was a shitty idea. Why is it the US looks down on other countries when they have civil wars, and in cases even tries to intervien somehow, yet they had one themselves, add to that the war for independence.

War is never the solution, even if its over something liek slavery.

I agree with you, war is a shitty idea. But even I, a pretty strong Left, can even agree that sometimes war needs to be implimented as a last resort when all other available methods have been tried.

I would say that war was a solution during WWII. What, was everyone to just lay back and say "no, don't kill/enslave me!" until the Nazi's conquered. Because all the alternatives seemed to have been used for the time. Unfortunately, humans are not inherently good and vice versa for evil, and there are people out there who do seem to gravitate to either extreme. So long as there are those who are willing to use force without any reason or rationale, force will have to be used against them. It's destructive and ignorant, but that doesn't take away from the fact that... well... humans ARE destructive and ignorant.

---

.

And those items would be...what? Seriously, is there ANYTHING Wal-Mart doesn't sell?

It's kind of cultish.

---

I have seen what wal mart does to small towns with my own eyes. Iv'e been going camping in Mansfield PA for 18 years, Wal Mart got there 3 years ago, in this short span of time Wal Mart eradicated the entire buisness district of everything but Antique shops, furthermore the people who worked in these stores are now forced to work for less at Wal Mart.

Wal Mart moves into a small town, lowers prices to the point where they are losing money in the franchise, and once all competition is phased out makes profit previously unheard of.

Wal Mart is notorious for hiring people claiming to give them a full time job, and then only allowing them to work up to 39 hours to avoid giving them benefits, and the most profitable Wal Mart in Canada was actualy shut down when the employes decided to start a Union

Wal Mart hires more illegal immigrants than any other American company, and pays them unfair wages. The vast majority of products made in a Wal Mart were made by asian children who are paid 12 cents a day and work hours an American would never dream of.

Wal Mart is the definition of Evil.

---

At 9/24/05 11:15 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Yes, we all know that change requires action. That isn't a method, that's just something that determines the resolution behind a method. I want to hear a simple, effective method that could achieve Unionization of a multi-billion dollar company.

Any method. More workers have been unionized in the past with not only threats of being fired but also threats of violence from both the company AND the government.

Usually workers are motivated by money. If you give them more money, they are likely to work harder to earn it. You -may- see an increase in productivity.

No, it doesn't work that way. You can't give someone money and then hope they work harder. They work harder so you will give them money, not the other way around. Thats like paying someone and hten hoping they will work for you, it's not going to happen.

So if there have been multiple strikes, wouldn't that be sufficient warning to the CEO's that, "hey, if we don't listen, we could go out of business". Aaaand yes, my uncle works for Air Canada, which does have a Union.

They have been listening, thats the problem. They keep raising the pay of the employees and then they just strike again. The employees are striking themselves out of a job, thier own greed bankrupted the company.

And which demographic are you looking at? Are you looking at the people who are fairly well off, young/middle aged, and healthy (ie. Teenagers). What about those who do need that work at Walmart for years, and who would actually benefit?

What demographic are you lookin at? 50-80?

Jim... wtf are you talking about? You said, "That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'." That is your opinion. What am I supposed to back up here? I'm supposed to back up your opinion, or back up the fact that you feel that way? Tell you what, when I read a book titled, "Jimsween and his opinions and views on politics", I'll have something to back up this "rebuttal". (??? lol)

Lol indeed, espescially considering the post after that I explained it in detail. And that the post you are citing is 5-6 posts back.

With what plan??? You say "oh, it's so damned easy they must be lazy", and yet attempts have been made in recent history, and so far, none of them have worked. Since you're such a brainchild and can see the simplicity of the situation, I want to hear a game-plan that will work for them.

I don't know, there are too many simple strategies for it. Perhaps employees from one store could talk to employees from another store, yeah I know that sounds crazy but it might work.

And did you ever take the time to consider that single mothers are usually BUSY AS HELL trying to raise a family on their own? I was in such a family, and the reason why we ended up in that situation was not my mother's fault whatsoever, aside from the fact that she married a man who ended up having to leave (notice how I said "had to", not "chose to"). Sometimes, things happen in people's lives that worsen thier life condition, and it's out of their control. You'll find that out when you age a few more years young man.

LOL!!! So now your argument has become, "They're too busy with other things to start a union, so we penalize wal-mart." Please, I'm sure Chavez had things he wanted to do too.

Enh, been in politics (BBS) for about a year and a half. I guess that's new compared to the mods and regs. New to politics though? Not quite. Ever since I was of age to vote, I did vote. And, even before that, I was a bit of a political observer. If you're talking about the recent thread that was made on the civil war, you'll see that even people from the south agree that the war had to happen, due to the fact that negotiations were of no avail.

I'm not arguing that the war could have been stopped, I'm arguing that it would have been better if there was no war.

You, kinda contradict yourself. You say that trends were changing, even though the ones who were fighting for the cause (the North) relied on slavery.

How is that a contradiction?

As for the slave trade, of course it was coming to an end... there were no more need for slaves in the US, they were already abundant. That doesn't stop them from selling the product or using it for themselves.

Thats simply not true. There were not enough slaves, America was constantly expanding, slaves were needed everywhere. And if there were enough slaves why were slaves such a valuable resource.

You're the one who linked up "slavery" to "American civil war". Not me buddy. I never said anything about sucessions. That has more to do with economics than Human Rights IMO.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Please explain how what you just said relates to the conversation.

And where would they be if there was no aid at all? Is it aid that creates the wars, or were they there to begin with.

Aid creates the wars, and cripples the countries (just look back to American-Soviet times). Without aid, dictatorships would not be able to fund thier armies, they would need to develop the country in order to make money, but with aid they can just leave the country to get worse and worse. The armies are what is stopping development. If there was no army, new leaders would arise, ones who didn't do it for power but rather because they wanted to help the countries. And it's the same for the democracies too, of which few can be considered legitimate.

I'm not. I never made that comparison. I said human rights envellops many aspects, from small to large issues. Ending poverty is a human rights issue, no? I'm simply making a correlation that could explain the rise in the poor populace in America. If you can find hard evidence that goes against my theory, then my theory could be wrong (that's what theories are for, to offer an explanation that may or may not be true).

Ending poverty is not a human rights issue. It's a humanitarian issue, but not a human rights issue. To say that you have a right to not be poor is just bullshit, you don't have a right to that, you have to work for that.

---

At 9/26/05 05:04 PM, Jimsween wrote: Any method. More workers have been unionized in the past with not only threats of being fired but also threats of violence from both the company AND the government.

Ah ok, so in other words it's not so "simple" and you have little idea as to how the movement would arise/go through. You say "any method", and yet the methods used before have been ineffective against WalMart's counters.

And how far back are you digging into "the past". You do realize we live in a post-industrial society in 2005 right? Where laws and values have changed?

Thats like paying someone and hten hoping they will work for you, it's not going to happen.

Actually no, it's like paying someone well for working. Paying someone money and hoping they do the work is sheer idiocy. There is no exchange upfront, aside from the worker's first efforts. You work, you get paid.

And from what I have seen from the jobs I have worked, getting a good pay does motivate people to work harder to sustain their job. Then again, I've only been working since I was 16, so what do I know.

They keep raising the pay of the employees and then they just strike again.

So a Union would be effective to prevent all of this from happening, right? And, I would need to see the history behind the case before I passed judgement. Context is always something good to look at.

What demographic are you lookin at? 50-80?

The full-time workers.

Lol indeed, espescially considering the post after that I explained it in detail. And that the post you are citing is 5-6 posts back.

What... this?
"Eh? That sounds alot like 'if you don't like America, leave it." If you can't handle your use of words being critisized, then why don't you leave? Hmm?"

I think you've gotten a little lost on what was being discussed here, but in all honesty, it's trivial banter anyways and has little to do with the thread.

I don't know, there are too many simple strategies for it. Perhaps employees from one store could talk to employees from another store, yeah I know that sounds crazy but it might work.

And that's when I explained my next point, that some people can't take the time to afford to go one or two towns over to accomplish this. Plus, if you're full-time, you're usually working the same time as the other full-time staff in other stores. Also, when you walk into another store, you won't know who would be for a Union and who would be against. You talk to the wrong person about this and it could mean your ass on the line. If that weren't enough, this has already been attempted. How do I know? One of my friends went to another WalMart with a group of protestors and he handed out fake coupon booklets for "MalWart". It looked very authentic at first, but then if you read the coupons, you would see the products gave descriptions of the bad practices by WalMart. As far as I know, no impact was made on the attempt to unite two stores together.

LOL!!! So now your argument has become, "They're too busy with other things to start a union, so we penalize wal-mart." Please, I'm sure Chavez had things he wanted to do too.

You know what Jim, you're probably just some punk middle-classed kid who doesn't know what "poverty" really is. Well buddy, a hardy "Fuck you" to you. If you don't know what it's like living in a poor home, maybe you should shut your ignorant mouth for once, because from my experience, the lower class are some of the hardest working individuals I've met. If you HAVE lived in a poor home, then your parents must have been the minority of lazy poor people out there.

I'm not arguing that the war could have been stopped, I'm arguing that it would have been better if there was no war.

That's only if everyone played nice and followed suit with how the effects happened with the war, only if there had not been one. Guess what, that -probably- wasn't going to happen due to greed. Happens all the time. Of course war is something to be avoided at all costs, but sometimes war is the last, and only solution left. Re-writting history in your vision does not make it true.

How is that a contradiction?

Because if they relied on it (as my definition of "relied" stands), then the economy wouldn't have survived if both the North and South were dependant on slavery to maintain. I don't think it was so much that they relied on slavery, but that they used it, and obviously had a downfall when it was abolished... now how bad that "depression" was, I don't know, I haven't studied every aspect of American History 100 percent.

Thats simply not true. There were not enough slaves, America was constantly expanding, slaves were needed everywhere. And if there were enough slaves why were slaves such a valuable resource.

The number of slaves to masters was greatly outnumbered. When is "enough" enough.
And... I'm hoping I'm misreading your question about "why were slaves a valuable resource"? The answer should be evident, no?

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Please explain how what you just said relates to the conversation.

Go back and read what was written that got us to this point.

Aid creates the wars, and cripples the countries (just look back to American-Soviet times)....

Evidence? Again, I only took one American History class in highschool, so I don't know every aspect of American History to the nth degree. And for contemporary times, has aid created the wars? I would also like to see the evidence behind these statements. As my understanding takes me, the aid generally comes during/after the wars, but I could be wrong.

Ending poverty is not a human rights issue. It's a humanitarian issue, but not a human rights issue. To say that you have a right to not be poor is just bullshit, you don't have a right to that, you have to work for that.

Meh, it's all under your Second Generational Rights. Here's a few that apply:

*Right to fair wages and equal pay for work of equal value
*Right to a decent living
*Right to social security
*Right to an adequate standard of living, in terms of food, clothing and housing
*Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
*Right to form trade unions

This was all taken from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Interpretation of the laws is when we go from objective to subjective. I guess we just interpret things differently.