Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    10 Sep '09 10:38 / 1 edit

    Why is justice a one-eyed blind woman? Wal-Mart, the most powerful corporation on earth, bans trade unions. McDonald's, too. Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash and workers' rights are valued even less?

    Who are the righteous and who are the villains? If international justice really exists, why are the powerful never judged? The masterminds of the worst butcheries are never sent to prison. Is it because it is these butchers themselves who hold the prison keys?

    What makes the five nations with veto power in the United Nations inviolable? Is it of a divine origin, that veto power of theirs? Can you trust those who profit from war to guard the peace?

    Is it fair that world peace is in the hands of the very five nations who are also the world’s main producers of weapons? Without implying any disrespect to the drug runners, couldn’t we refer to this arrangement as yet another example of organized crime?

    Those who clamor, everywhere, for the death penalty are strangely silent about the owners of the world. Even worse, these clamorers forever complain about knife-wielding murderers, yet say nothing about missile-wielding arch-murderers.


    http://www.counterpunch.org/galeano08132009.html
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '09 19:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    What makes the five nations with veto power in the United Nations inviolable? Is it of a divine origin, that veto power of theirs?
    I agree.

    There's no reason France and England should have veto powers.

    Seriously though, aside from being pure leftist propaganda, that quote ignores the fact that the UN Security Council is pretty much irrelevant anyway.
  3. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    10 Sep '09 20:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    I agree.

    There's no reason France and England should have veto powers.

    Seriously though, aside from being pure leftist propaganda, that quote ignores the fact that the UN Security Council is pretty much irrelevant anyway.
    "the UN Security Council is pretty much irrelevant anyway."
    Agreed. The USA and Israel are making a good job at achieving that.

    "aside from being pure leftist propaganda"
    Would you break down the propaganda to me?
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Sep '09 20:20
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    What makes the five nations with veto power in the United Nations inviolable? Is it of a divine origin, that veto power of theirs?

    http://www.counterpunch.org/galeano08132009.html
    Nukes.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '09 20:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    "aside from being pure leftist propaganda"
    Would you break down the propaganda to me?
    Sure. I'll be glad to.

    ===Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? ===

    "Criminal impunity"? Seriously? What's criminal about it? Have they been convicted of criminal violations in this regard? With what "impunity" do they violate criminal laws? Which specific criminal laws do they violate?

    ===Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash ===

    Nonsense. "Lower than trash" is a meaningless metaphor calculated to evoke a visceral reaction. It's not based on anything substantive.

    ===Without implying any disrespect to the drug runners===

    Yuk yuk. Impliedly praising drug runners over the governments of the United States, England, France, etc. is pure nonsense. It's seeking a cheap laugh at the expense of organized government.

    ===couldn’t we refer to this arrangement as yet another example of organized crime?===

    It's government. Referring to government as organized crime is akin to anarchism which, of course, aside from its merit or lack thereof, is leftist propaganda.

    === the owners of the world===

    The "owners of the World"? Really? The duly elected governments of the United States, England and France are the owners of the World? Why? Because they have a veto power on the UN security counsel? What a silly baseless exaggeration.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '09 20:29
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    The USA and Israel are making a good job at achieving that.
    Yeah; big ol' powerful Israel and it's substantial effect on the UN...

    Israel is so powerful in the UN that it's basically the only country on the World that's not even eligible to sit on the Security Council. It's so powerful that it's never been appointed to serve on any significant commission (unlike great bastions of freedom and Democracy like Sudan, Libya, Iran, Russia and China) and seems to get condemned by one UN body or another every hour, on the hour.
  7. 10 Sep '09 20:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sure. I'll be glad to.

    ===Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? ===

    "Criminal impunity"? Seriously? What's criminal about it? Have they been convicted of criminal violations in this regard? With what "impunity" do they violate criminal laws? Which specific criminal laws do they violate?

    ===Is it because in this ...[text shortened]... y have a veto power on the UN security counsel? What a silly baseless exaggeration.
    It seems to me half the Republicans tend to take the Libertarian view when it comes to businesses. That they should have no government regulations, i.e. overtime, minimum wage, etc. Their take is that it's his business, darn it and if workers don't like what they're given they can choose to work elseware.

    But when workers want to band together empower themselves they're demonized by the right. It seems to me it's only about serving corporations with many Republicans.

    On the flip side, many on the left are guilty of irrational bashing of "corporate America." But on the right there also seems to be some corporate worship, as if unregulated capitalism is the holy grail that will solve all of our problems.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '09 20:43
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It seems to me half the Republicans tend to take the Libertarian view when it comes to businesses. That they should have no government regulations, i.e. overtime, minimum wage, etc. Their take is that it's his business, darn it and if workers don't like what they're given they can choose to work elseware.

    But when workers want to band together ...[text shortened]... ship, as if unregulated capitalism is the holy grail that will solve all of our problems.
    I certainly don't demonize labor unions. If they want to organize and work for a common cause, more power to them. But I also don't think they need to be coddled by the law. If a company can manage without dealing with unions, well, then that's their choice as well. Obviously, unions need to be protected by law in some ways (I don't think a company should be able to fire someone for union membership), but I don't think the law ought to slant the playing field in favor of unions either.
  9. 10 Sep '09 20:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    I certainly don't demonize labor unions. If they want to organize and work for a common cause, more power to them. But I also don't think they need to be coddled by the law. If a company can manage without dealing with unions, well, then that's their choice as well. Obviously, unions need to be protected by law in some ways (I don't think a company should be ab ...[text shortened]... hip), but I don't think the law ought to slant the playing field in favor of unions either.
    In what ways do laws slant in their favor, besides granting them to freedom to organize?
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '09 20:54
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    In what ways do laws slant in their favor, besides granting them to freedom to organize?
    They don't. I have no problem with the laws as they exist now. It is a little too easy sometimes to win a settlement or verdict with a baseless employment discrimination lawsuit, but all in all, the laws are fine.

    I'm just saying that I don't think that Walmart should be forced to deal with unions if they can avoid it; as they aren't.
  11. 10 Sep '09 21:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    They don't. I have no problem with the laws as they exist now. It is a little too easy sometimes to win a settlement or verdict with a baseless employment discrimination lawsuit, but all in all, the laws are fine.

    I'm just saying that I don't think that Walmart should be forced to deal with unions if they can avoid it; as they aren't.
    Walmart has also been accused on many occasions for being hostile toward employees who even discuss the idea of unionizing.
  12. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    10 Sep '09 21:15
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It seems to me half the Republicans tend to take the Libertarian view when it comes to businesses.
    Don't use the word Libertarian in that way please. I know it's kinda normal in the USA but that use has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word.
  13. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    10 Sep '09 21:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yeah; big ol' powerful Israel and it's substantial effect on the UN...

    Israel is so powerful in the UN that it's basically the only country on the World that's not even eligible to sit on the Security Council. It's so powerful that it's never been appointed to serve on any significant commission (unlike great bastions of freedom and Democracy like Sudan, Lib ...[text shortened]... a and China) and seems to get condemned by one UN body or another every hour, on the hour.
    In case you missed it I was talking about the USA and Israel doing things their way all the time.

    Heavily documented if you want to check it out.

    "Seriously? What's criminal about it? Have they been convicted of criminal violations in this regard? With what "impunity" do they violate criminal laws? Which specific criminal laws do they violate?"
    Do you really want examples of criminal impunity by big corporations?

    "===Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash ===

    Nonsense. "Lower than trash" is a meaningless metaphor calculated to evoke a visceral reaction. It's not based on anything substantive. "
    I could say the same about your answer. Provide me an argument so that we can engage in a debate.

    "Yuk yuk. Impliedly praising drug runners over the governments of the United States, England, France, etc. is pure nonsense. It's seeking a cheap laugh at the expense of organized government. "
    Did you miss the sarcasm? Or am I missing sarcasm on your part?

    "It's government. Referring to government as organized crime is akin to anarchism which, of course, aside from its merit or lack thereof, is leftist propaganda. "
    He didn't refer to government as organized crime. It is pretty clear what he referred to as organized crime.

    "The "owners of the World"? Really? The duly elected governments of the United States, England and France are the owners of the World? Why? Because they have a veto power on the UN security counsel? What a silly baseless exaggeration."
    In the paragraph before it is very explicit what he means by the expression owners of the world and that isn't it.
  14. 10 Sep '09 21:26
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Don't use the word Libertarian in that way please. I know it's kinda normal in the USA but that use has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word.
    I'm addressing a American political ideology using the definition that is accepted there. I think you can manage.
  15. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    10 Sep '09 21:30
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I'm addressing a American political ideology using the definition that is accepted there. I think you can manage.
    I can manage it, but you could learn the original meaning of the word too.