I was reading a site from another site's forum member, and I came onto this part of the page:

http://www.ryangrantlong.com/onliberal.html

This is part of the page that I like:


Eventually, the word “liberal” and “conservative” will cease to be thrown like daggers at people holding opposing views and their original definitions will be restored:

CONSERVATIVE: A person who is concerned with stability, prudence, and maintaining resources. Sees government as a business.

LIBERAL: Someone devoted to progressive social reform. Sees government as representing and attending to the needs of the people.

A straight, white, conservative male can and does take his freedom for granted, not because he is a bad person per se, but because he simply does not understand what it is like not to be in power. He requires the point of view of others that cannot share in his privilege to make him aware of the need for social reform. And that is exactly where liberals come in. By working together, liberals and conservatives can share their views and each deploy their unique strengths toward building a stronger nation that represents all of the various types of people that comprise it.

Truth is, the US needs both types. We need conservatives because they tend to appreciate the aspects of government practices that are business-like. True conservatives are levelheaded and find ways to save and spend money wisely. Conservatives seek to preserve the traditions that are already in place.

I personally think everyone here can benefit from reading it(even those of you who might have thought like him all along would enjoy knowing there's someone who agrees).  I hope this won't be like adding fuel to the fire, but what he says sounds very true. 

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" mean little to me when it comes public policy.  There are good ideas and bad ideas.  Most of the ideas I call "good" put me in the "liberal" camp.  However, many of the stereotypes about "liberals" are nonsense perpetuated by the right-wing.  Many of the people who call themselves "conservatives," especially in America, are not "conservative" about anything.  They're fiscally selfish and socially reactionary, but the "conservative" qualities your article describes are largely absent from their credo.

I agree with so-called "conservatives" when they say there is too much vulgarity in popular culture.  However, my definition of vulgarity extends beyond sex and profanity.  Corporatist greed, religious hypocrisy, and war-mongering are to me much more vulgar than Britney Speares shaking her money maker.  What's more, Britney Speares leads right back to corporatist greed, which the religious right DOES NOT condemn (well, they do, but only nominally).  The Christian right, and so-called "conservatives" condemn the products of corporate greed, but somehow manage to put "free market capitalism" on a pedestal.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" mean little to me when it comes public policy.  There are good ideas and bad ideas.  Most of the ideas I call "good" put me in the "liberal" camp.  However, many of the stereotypes about "liberals" are nonsense perpetuated by the right-wing.  Many of the people who call themselves "conservatives," especially in America, are not "conservative" about anything.  They're fiscally selfish and socially reactionary, but the "conservative" qualities your article describes are largely absent from their credo.


Translated loosely, "Liberals like me are good, Conservatives are evil".

Nice olive branch there Maxwell.

Maxwell, don't you know that your rants show people how evil Liberals are?  Be more responsible you godless intellecutal peacenik liberal freak.


Actually it does not show me how "evil" they may be.

But what it does show me is that a lot of people who claim "tolerance for others" are very iintolerant of people who do not agree with them.

Nobody tolerates people that don't agree with them.  I don't tolerate it one bit.

Nobody tolerates people that don't agree with them.  I don't tolerate it one bit.


May I say I admire your upfront and pure honesty, it's nice to seem something rare.

too...much...sarcasm...head...gonna...explode!!!!

too...much...sarcasm...head...gonna...explode!!!!




LMAO!!!!!





Cat

Did anyone read what I had in the link?  What I quoted was only part of it.

It wasn't being 100% pro-conservative, or 100% pro-liberal, it was talking about how we can and should be united, which I truly agree with.

It's saying people are throwing those words around like insults and not accepting them as just different types of a person.  It also says how George W. Bush isn't being conservative, nor is it saying he's liberal(obviously). 
I just think both of you need to swallow your pride and keep an open mind, because it's a good read.  Seriously, aren't you tired of all the bickering on this WEBSITE?

Thank you for your time.

Did anyone read what I had in the link?  What I quoted was only part of it.

It wasn't being 100% pro-conservative, or 100% pro-liberal, it was talking about how we can and should be united, which I truly agree with.

It's saying people are throwing those words around like insults and not accepting them as just different types of a person.  It also says how George W. Bush isn't being conservative, nor is it saying he's liberal(obviously). 
I just think both of you need to swallow your pride and keep an open mind, because it's a good read.  Seriously, aren't you tired of all the bickering on this WEBSITE?

Thank you for your time.




I do agree with you. Yes, I do concider myself a liberal but some of my best friends are more conservative. I do try to accept ideas from all fronts. Some I disagree with. Usually, people's beliefs do not bother me one way or the other unless they interfer with me personal. Example: As most here know, I not of the Judeo-Christian belief. I am a practicing witch. I don't have a problem with other people practicing their religions just as long as I can do the same. If some (whether it be liberal or conservitive) wants to prevent me from exersizing my rights under the First Admendment, I am going to scream and holler. And that goes for all the other rights granted under the Constitution.





Cat

Translated loosely, "Liberals like me are good, Conservatives are evil".

Nice olive branch there Maxwell.

You don't need an olive branch, you need a figleaf!

I was talking about the right-wing radicals of the Republican party who are not really "conservatives" at all.  I wasn't talking about you, then, was I?

Furthermore, a lot of the intolerence bound up with the "liberal" label isn't really liberal at all (you know, the PC police and all that).  Nor is the "anything goes" sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll hedonism that gets lumped in with "liberalism."  that's libertine, which is not the same as liberal.

The core of the irreconcilable differences is not cultural but political.  The "culture wars" are a distraction from the true motivation of the Republicans to destroy the social contract built up since the New Deal.  Politics is a matter of who gets what, and the Republicans are there to make sure the rich get richer and the rest of us get the shaft.  That's why it is hard for me to make peace with so-called "conservatives" when they are dedicated to such a savage political party.

I do agree with you. Yes, I do concider myself a liberal but some of my best friends are more conservative. I do try to accept ideas from all fronts. Some I disagree with. Usually, people's beliefs do not bother me one way or the other unless they interfer with me personal. Example: As most here know, I not of the Judeo-Christian belief. I am a practicing witch. I don't have a problem with other people practicing their religions just as long as I can do the same. If some (whether it be liberal or conservitive) wants to prevent me from exersizing my rights under the First Admendment, I am going to scream and holler. And that goes for all the other rights granted under the Constitution.


Personally, I do not have a problem with any religion, unless it practices unwilling human sacrifice, or is intolerant of other religions.  If your religion requires you to paint your body purple and bark at the moon, that is your right (as long as you do not keep me awake with your barking).

I do not care about a persons sex, age, religion, race, sexuality, social affiliation, or anything else.  I even dated a Wiccan for a while, and did not have a problem with it (however, she had a problem with me being a Christian).

May I say I admire your upfront and pure honesty, it's nice to seem something rare.


Well, you cant just tolerate everything people say or think! Some peoples ideas don't make a lot of sense, and some peoples ideas just cant work in society.  You have to stand up and say when you don't agree, even if it makes other people mad.  If they get mad, that's there problem.  That doesn't mean you call people names or make up stuff about them like people on this board like to do whenever there loosing an arguement.  But if we tolerate everybodys ideas people will just do what they want.  Somebody could say "Oh, I don't believe in taxes, so I'm not gonna pay.  You have to tolerate my ideas about that."  Or they could say "I beat my kids because I think its the best way to make them disiplined, so you have to respect my ideas about that".  Do people think we should tolerate that?  No way! That's crazy! And I don't care who gets mad about me saying that!

Well, you cant just tolerate everything people say or think! Some peoples ideas don't make a lot of sense, and some peoples ideas just cant work in society.  You have to stand up and say when you don't agree, even if it makes other people mad.  If they get mad, that's there problem.  That doesn't mean you call people names or make up stuff about them like people on this board like to do whenever there loosing an arguement.  But if we tolerate everybodys ideas people will just do what they want.  Somebody could say "Oh, I don't believe in taxes, so I'm not gonna pay.  You have to tolerate my ideas about that."  Or they could say "I beat my kids because I think its the best way to make them disiplined, so you have to respect my ideas about that".  Do people think we should tolerate that?  No way! That's crazy! And I don't care who gets mad about me saying that!


The no give a crap attitude towards what other people think about you or your ideas.  Gotta like that too.

The no give a crap attitude towards what other people think about you or your ideas. Gotta like that too.


No, there is a difference between not being afraid of saying what you have to say, and talking with a I don't give a crap what YOU think attitude.  It is natural that you idolize me, but be careful you dont misundertand, grasshopper.  Go and sin no more.

Personally, I do not have a problem with any religion, unless it practices unwilling human sacrifice, or is intolerant of other religions.  If your religion requires you to paint your body purple and bark at the moon, that is your right (as long as you do not keep me awake with your barking).

I do not care about a persons sex, age, religion, race, sexuality, social affiliation, or anything else.  I even dated a Wiccan for a while, and did not have a problem with it (however, she had a problem with me being a Christian).




This is proof that liberals and conservitives can agree on some things.  ;D ;)



We have a saying here, "Just as long as you don't do it in the streets and scare the horses."


Like I said, if someone tries to deny me my rights under the Constitution (or anyone elses for that matter) I will scream bloody murder. And I hope you will, too.





Cat

No, there is a difference between not being afraid of saying what you have to say, and talking with a I don't give a crap what YOU think attitude.  It is natural that you idolize me, but be careful you dont misundertand, grasshopper.  Go and sin no more.


Grasshoper? Since when did I become a grasshoper?  Idolize you is rather an extreme way of putting it.  Go and Sin no more? If it were humanly possible, I would.

Like I said, if someone tries to deny me my rights under the Constitution (or anyone elses for that matter) I will scream bloody murder. And I hope you will, too.


I hope that you know that I *would* do that.  When the gal got fired for a "Kerry For President" bumpersticker, I screamed bloody murder in here.  And even more recently, I have said that unless Karl Rove has a damned good reason for lying under oath (IE: the Intelligence community asked him to in order to protect other intelligence assets), he should be prosecuted.

One thing I am insistant on is consistancy and "fair play", especially when the law or Constitution come into play.  The only time I get upset is when people play by a double standard.  "What is OK for me is not OK for you" does not exist in my beliefs.

And to the person that sent me a message asking about my "Human Sacrifice" beliefs, I have no problem with willing human sacrifice.  If some fool believes that crucifying himself or having her heart cut out on an altar to Quetzaquatal will bring them closer to "God", that is their right.  Just don't ask me to "drink the kool-aid".

I hope that you know that I *would* do that.  When the gal got fired for a "Kerry For President" bumpersticker, I screamed bloody murder in here.  And even more recently, I have said that unless Karl Rove has a darned good reason for lying under oath (IE: the Intelligence community asked him to in order to protect other intelligence assets), he should be prosecuted.

One thing I am insistant on is consistancy and "fair play", especially when the law or Constitution come into play.  The only time I get upset is when people play by a double standard.  "What is OK for me is not OK for you" does not exist in my beliefs.

And to the person that sent me a message asking about my "Human Sacrifice" beliefs, I have no problem with willing human sacrifice.  If some fool believes that crucifying himself or having her heart cut out on an altar to Quetzaquatal will bring them closer to "God", that is their right.  Just don't ask me to "drink the kool-aid".



http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif




Cat

Grasshoper? Since when did I become a grasshoper?  Idolize you is rather an extreme way of putting it.  Go and Sin no more? If it were humanly possible, I would.


Grasshopper is in reference to the television show "Kung Fu"  It was Kwai Chang Caines nickname.

Grasshopper is in reference to the television show "Kung Fu"  It was Kwai Chang Caines nickname.


David Carridine

Grasshopper is in reference to the television show "Kung Fu"  It was Kwai Chang Caines nickname.

I'd like to think the media image of Asians has improved since the sampan hat chop-socky days!
:P

I'd like to think the media image of Asians has improved since the sampan hat chop-socky days!
:P


Kung Fu, A Man Called Horse, Shogun, Tarzan, are all homage to the superiority of the Anglo male,
how they are able to enter into a different society and be better than the best that they had to offer.
It always irked the he!! out of me.

Kung Fu, A Man Called Horse, Shogun, Tarzan, are all homage to the superiority of the Anglo male,
how they are able to enter into a different society and be better than the best that they had to offer.
It always irked the he!! out of me.


Huh?

I admit, I have not seen Shogun.  But as far as the first 2, it seems like the opposite.

In Kung Fu, Caine (a Chinese immigrant) was constantly shown beating the crap outta "white males", most of them armed with guns while he had nothing but his fists.  Kinda hard to look superior when you are knocked out.

And I loved the "Man Called Horse" series (except for the last one, with Michael Beck).  And if anything, they also showed things the other way around.  Granted, at the end of the first movie he returned to "civilization", but at the beginning of the 2nd movie, he returned to live with the Lakota tribe, and stayed there for the rest of his life.  He much prefered his life with them then living as a Lord in England.  And he was a constant advocate of Indian Rights in the movies (once he got to understand them).

As far as Tarzan, I guess it depends on if you are looking at the books or the movies.  The books were largely written in a similar style to "A Man Called Horse".  After living in remote and savage environment (not the people, the settings of Africa and Frontier America) he returns to England to be a Lord (Lord Morgan in Horse, Lord Greystoke in Tarzan).  But in the end, he prefers his prior life and returns to it, turning his back on land, titles, and money.  When it comes to Tarzan, I largely ignore the movies, since most were poor quality serial style, which was stereotypically 1930's Hollywood - with little bearing on the original story.  Look at Buck Rogers to see how far they will change things from original story and movie.

I find it rather hard to imagine what is superior about "white society", when the protaganist turns his back on it and prefers to live with "primitives".  If anything, it is a slap in the face to the concept of "superiority".

My take on the liberal/conservative thing is that both "real" positions are cut from the same cloth.  That was cetainly true during the days of Barry Goldwater, and I think is true of John McCain and his ilk.  It is not true of the current batch now in power, who have diluded true conservative into supporting a neofacsist corporate agenda.  In my view, this DOES NOT include most, if not all conservatives on this board - oh, maybe one or 2.  As I see it, both liberals and conservarives accept the ultimate effocy of capitalism in one form or another, and so I am neither.  While it is clearly the most productive economic system ever invented, it is also the least humane and the most destructive of both the natural and human environment.  While clearly some of its depridations have roots in the anchient past, it has magnified those depridations a the point as to be unrecognizable by its forebarers.  The trick, of course, is to retain its productivity (to a point) and eliminate its destructiveness to both the natural and the human environment.  I would think (hope?) that both liberals and conservatives would come to recognize this and make common cause with radicals (searchers for the root cause, as in math)  and seek a more just and humane world, although I have no perscriptions.

My take on the liberal/conservative thing is that both "real" positions are cut from the same cloth.  That was cetainly true during the days of Barry Goldwater, and I think is true of John McCain and his ilk.  It is not true of the current batch now in power, who have diluded true conservative into supporting a neofacsist corporate agenda.  In my view, this DOES NOT include most, if not all conservatives on this board - oh, maybe one or 2.  As I see it, both liberals and conservarives accept the ultimate effocy of capitalism in one form or another, and so I am neither.  While it is clearly the most productive economic system ever invented, it is also the least humane and the most destructive of both the natural and human environment.  While clearly some of its depridations have roots in the anchient past, it has magnified those depridations a the point as to be unrecognizable by its forebarers.  The trick, of course, is to retain its productivity (to a point) and eliminate its destructiveness to both the natural and the human environment.  I would think (hope?) that both liberals and conservatives would come to recognize this and make common cause with radicals (searchers for the root cause, as in math)  and seek a more just and humane world, although I have no perscriptions.


There ARE only one or two conservatives on this board Don Carlos.  Percent wise anyway.

Maybe Kung Fu is confusing because the actor is white.


In the movie his paternity/maternity was half chinese half anglo.  The rest of my speech got off track and
maybe I'll start it as a different thread.

I think that a lot of the problem (on both sides) is that people hear the term "Liberal" or "Conservative", and automatically consider whoever uses the title to be an extremist.

When I call myself "Conservative", some automatically assume that my politics are somewhere between Barry Goldwater and George McCarthy.  And some hear "Liberal", and assume the politics are around those of Joseph Stallin or Chairman Mao.  In reality, most of us are somewhere closer to the middle then the extreme.

Just because I am "Conservative", that does not mean I agree 100% with every radical and fringe group that also claims to have the title "Conservative".  I make my own political choices.  I listen to input from both sides, then make my own decision based on the information I have.  And I even change my positions, if newer information causes me to reconsider my first stance.

I am not a robot.  I refuse to take "marching orders" from any group or organization.  In 1992, I even tried to talk to the Ross Perot people, just to get more information (I actually decided to not consider Ross after my questions were always answered with "sign the petition, and he will give his positions after he is on the ballot").

And I often will speak in defense of groups that I oppose, simply because it is their right to exist.  I am ambivilous to the Minutemen, but I defend their right to do what they do.  This is no different then what the ACLU does when it stands up to protect the rights of groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis.  I do not have to agree with you, for me to speak out for your rights.  The last thing I want to do is try to silence those that oppose me (unless they are useing deceit or illegal means).

I kind of wonder what happened to republicans.  During the Clinton years, republicans really acted like conservatives, now they don't seem to as much.  I'm starting to think it's best if we have a democrat in the white house and republican majorities in the house of representatives and the senate, then they'd act conservative.  But that's just one man's opinion.

Real conservatives:

Walter B. Jones
Newt Gingrich
Thomas G. Tancredo
George Allen
Tom DeLay
Robert Vasquez
Randy Graf
Tom Coburn
Jim DeMint

Phony conservatives:

John McCain
Rudolph Giuliani 
Jim Kolbe
Chris Cannon
Christopher Shays
Pat Dewine
Olympia J. Snowe
Susan Collins

IMO,
A true conservative would be in favor of conserving the ecology rather than handing every acre of God's green Earth for big business to despoil.

A true conservative would favor fiscal responsibility.  Our status as the biggest debtor nation in the world does not indicate any kind of fiscal responsibility.

A true conservative would recognize the health, education, and security of the many must outweigh the avaraice of the individual.

I see none of this from the people on GWB's list of "true conservatives."

I kind of wonder what happened to republicans.  During the Clinton years, republicans really acted like conservatives, now they don't seem to as much. 

Real conservatives:

Phony conservatives:



Sorry GW, but I guess I am a "Phony Conservative".  Although I see that you are trying to make the words interchangeable.

I am both a Republican, and a Conservative.  However, that does not mean that I will blindly follow the "Party Line".  And I like to think that the party I listen to most often does not have some kind of Litmus Test to show how "Politically Pure" you are.


IMO,
A true conservative would be in favor of conserving the ecology rather than handing every acre of God's green Earth for big business to despoil.

A true conservative would favor fiscal responsibility.  Our status as the biggest debtor nation in the world does not indicate any kind of fiscal responsibility.

A true conservative would recognize the health, education, and security of the many must outweigh the avaraice of the individual.


Well, I am very interested in conserving the ecology.  I believe fully in conservation and responsibility when it comes to harvesting our natural resources.  And it is just good business sense to be that way also.

And I agree about health, education and security.  But with that also comes personal responsibility.  Mostly, I distrust government programs that try to take over what should be the responsibility of the individual.  I like a "safety net", but do not want to see all aspects of my life dictated by the government (nor to see my taxes spent on supporting those who do not work).

In many areas I am "Socially Liberal", but only for people that need it, not for those who want a free ride.  And I am willing to trust corporations, unless they have proved that they are not worthy of that trust (the same way that I trust people unless they prove to be not worthy of that trust).

Sorry GW, but I guess I am a "Phony Conservative".  Although I see that you are trying to make the words interchangeable.

I am both a Republican, and a Conservative.  However, that does not mean that I will blindly follow the "Party Line".  And I like to think that the party I listen to most often does not have some kind of Litmus Test to show how "Politically Pure" you are.

Well, I am very interested in conserving the ecology.  I believe fully in conservation and responsibility when it comes to harvesting our natural resources.  And it is just good business sense to be that way also.

And I agree about health, education and security.  But with that also comes personal responsibility.  Mostly, I distrust government programs that try to take over what should be the responsibility of the individual.  I like a "safety net", but do not want to see all aspects of my life dictated by the government (nor to see my taxes spent on supporting those who do not work).

In many areas I am "Socially Liberal", but only for people that need it, not for those who want a free ride.  And I am willing to trust corporations, unless they have proved that they are not worthy of that trust (the same way that I trust people unless they prove to be not worthy of that trust).

I agree with "no free ride," but with "no free ride" must come a viable alternative.  Conservatives argued against the welfare state from the git-go, but they are never willing to tell corporate America it cannot choose profits over people.  If Alan Greenspan could talk to you off the record, he'd tell you we need a permanent underclass, an abyss into which every man and woman feels at risk of falling, in order to keep our brand of crony avarice alive. 
A viable alternative to welfare is not working at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. 

I agree with "no free ride," but with "no free ride" must come a viable alternative.  Conservatives argued against the welfare state from the git-go, but they are never willing to tell corporate America it cannot choose profits over people.  If Alan Greenspan could talk to you off the record, he'd tell you we need a permanent underclass, an abyss into which every man and woman feels at risk of falling, in order to keep our brand of crony avarice alive. 
A viable alternative to welfare is not working at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. 


Well, unless you believe in a "classless society", we will always have an underclass, if we want one or not.  You can't deny that there is a segment of our society that does not want to do anything, and simply wants a "free ride".

Myself, I think that a lot of the problem in this country today is lack of initiative.  There is nothing wrong with working at McDonalds.  There is something wrong with working in a series of minimum-wage jobs for year after year.

Every society has an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class.  It even exists in animal societies.  The "Over Achievers" often are at one end, the "Under Achievers" are at the other.  Most tend to be somewhere in the middle.

And I have worked for many years in "corporate America".  Trust me, for the most part they do not put profit over people.  Doing that only ensures that the most tallented people will go elsewhere.  If you do not care about your employees, they will go to a company where they are appreciated (or make their own company).  Remember, Compaq was started by people who did not like how IBM was doing business.  Cyrix was started by people who did not like how Intel was doing business.  Treating your employees poorly results in a drain of people.  Just ask Nazi Germany what happened when they persecuted the Jews (or the USSR when Stalin imprisoned his scientists).

That is not to say that does not happen.  But there is a word for companies like that, it is "Bankrupt". 

Sorry GW, but I guess I am a "Phony Conservative".  Although I see that you are trying to make the words interchangeable.

I am both a Republican, and a Conservative.  However, that does not mean that I will blindly follow the "Party Line".  And I like to think that the party I listen to most often does not have some kind of Litmus Test to show how "Politically Pure" you are.



The party line?  Are you kidding?  The party line now seems to be don't speak of Bush's spending and immigration policy.  The people I listed are among some of his most vocal critics in the republican party.  You'll never see them with any committee chairmanships or in any leadership position.

John McCain is good on fiscal conservativism, but him siding with Edward Kennedy to file an amnesty for illegal aliens bill that stands no chance in the house of representatives just puts a bad taste in my mouth about him.  Also joining the "gang of 14" didn't help.

There are plenty of Bush-bots who do nothing more than tow the party line, I'm not one of them.  If I was, would I speak out like I've done here so many times before about how angry I am with Bush over immigration and spending?  Would I have opposed CAFTA?

IMO,
A true conservative would be in favor of conserving the ecology rather than handing every acre of God's green Earth for big business to despoil.


I agree.  The republicans have blown this issue and let the liberals take it.  The hunters, the fishermen, the hikers: all conservative.  The republicans should have the advantage on the environment.

Well, unless you believe in a "classless society", we will always have an underclass, if we want one or not.  You can't deny that there is a segment of our society that does not want to do anything, and simply wants a "free ride".

Myself, I think that a lot of the problem in this country today is lack of initiative.  There is nothing wrong with working at McDonalds.  There is something wrong with working in a series of minimum-wage jobs for year after year.

Every society has an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class.  It even exists in animal societies.  The "Over Achievers" often are at one end, the "Under Achievers" are at the other.  Most tend to be somewhere in the middle.

And I have worked for many years in "corporate America".  Trust me, for the most part they do not put profit over people.  Doing that only ensures that the most tallented people will go elsewhere.  If you do not care about your employees, they will go to a company where they are appreciated (or make their own company).  Remember, Compaq was started by people who did not like how IBM was doing business.  Cyrix was started by people who did not like how Intel was doing business.  Treating your employees poorly results in a drain of people.  Just ask Nazi Germany what happened when they persecuted the Jews (or the USSR when Stalin imprisoned his scientists).

That is not to say that does not happen.  But there is a word for companies like that, it is "Bankrupt". 


I agree with much that you say, but I cannot agree with what you say about the treatment of people by corporate America.
I have also worked in corporate America, in personnel and payroll, and I find that they do put profit over people.  The are very good to the upper echelon people, and kind to the middle, but there isn't any reason but greed that dictates that a Wal-Mart or companies like that pay workers substandard wages.  Wal-Mart gives information on applying for government assistance to supplement it's wage package.  The majority of people do not have the wherewithal, money, education, drive, to start a Compaq, IBM, or Google.  That doesn't make them bad, lazy, or unworthy  of a living wage. You may look at someone and see them as an "underacheiver" but it is the "underacheivers" who get up, get on the bus, or bike, or walk, to work everyday and put in an honest days work, and corporate America squeezes them everyday.  Nine-nine percent of them are not underachievers, everyone who gets up everyday and goes to work should be treated with respect and that is not true in America today.

Well, unless you believe in a "classless society", we will always have an underclass, if we want one or not. You can't deny that there is a segment of our society that does not want to do anything, and simply wants a "free ride".

Myself, I think that a lot of the problem in this country today is lack of initiative. There is nothing wrong with working at McDonalds. There is something wrong with working in a series of minimum-wage jobs for year after year.

Every society has an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class. It even exists in animal societies. The "Over Achievers" often are at one end, the "Under Achievers" are at the other. Most tend to be somewhere in the middle.

And I have worked for many years in "corporate America". Trust me, for the most part they do not put profit over people. Doing that only ensures that the most tallented people will go elsewhere. If you do not care about your employees, they will go to a company where they are appreciated (or make their own company). Remember, Compaq was started by people who did not like how IBM was doing business. Cyrix was started by people who did not like how Intel was doing business. Treating your employees poorly results in a drain of people. Just ask Nazi Germany what happened when they persecuted the Jews (or the USSR when Stalin imprisoned his scientists).

That is not to say that does not happen. But there is a word for companies like that, it is "Bankrupt".


See, I knew all these political labels were crap.  I actually agree with pretty much everything Mushroom says.