Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to THE SELFISH BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVE FUNDAMENTALISTS
Aaron
Intelligent free -trade would say that right now just about all of the Big Businesses out there are wrong and doing the wrong thing. Greed however is all for what hey are doing as they rape this country and leave out economy in shambles. Free-trade doesn't mean just doing what is best for yourself. A responsible and intelligent person who engages in free -trade need not be greedy and can actually help make things better not because they have anything to gain, but because it is best for long term success. The basic ideas of greed that I very much see promoted by both the conservative ideas and the fundamentalists ideas is what the real problem is and it brings down the effectiveness of systems like free-trade.
As for what Bush has been doing, he has been helping Big business get away with whatever they wish and has been rewarding them for being greedy and not doing what is best for all, including their own long term success. Why? Because Bush has no clue about Business and only cares about short term gain. How many companies did he ruin before he had his one success? He has no business sense at all.
And yes, I was thinking about Halliburton’s no-bid contract as a perfect example of how Bush has done all he could to give one company a full monopoly and allow that company to do as they please in taking our tax dollars with no level of responsibility. You do not give one company that much power. I have yet to see proof that Halliburton was the only company that could do this and even if that were so, you still ask for bid and make sure that the price being asked is responsible and fair. You also make sure you have some control. Let's say you find the perfect handy man and he does all the work in your house for you and you find one thing you know he does great and he claims he is the only one who can do this job. Do you just take his word and say he can charge whatever he wants for the job? or do you at least look around and see what other handy men say and get some idea of just what is a fair price and if your guy is asking too much, find someone else who can do part and someone else to do another part and so on, if it will save you money and make more sense. Other companies could have at least provide parts of those services, as well if not better than Halliburton. And if they went and stimulated some friendly competition to see if others could offer competitive services, it would have been a smart move on so many level, even if Halliburton still received the contract.
Just the fact that no other option were looked into, no other companies were asked to place bids for any part of it and basically they just handed them a true monopoly (After all is no other company can provide such service, what else would you call it?) it shows that they were not trying to promote any sensible or fair practices at such a level. Bush had made it clear through his actions that if he favors you he will help you gain the upper hand over you competition.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 6, 2006 at 5:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Clarity
Kooka – perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought it sounded like you were using “greed” and “free markets” interchangeably. I think “self-interest” is a better term: free markets expect people to act in their own interests, which has surprising strengths despite its’ weaknesses. For example, it is in the best interests of a company to be charitable for public relations purposes. Where this must be held in check is not allowing companies to pretend to donate money while not actually doing so, or some such scam. A free market combined with individual charity is what I advocate.
Your last comment made some good points, although I think you’re exaggerating about Bush trying to eliminate regulation and competition. Perhaps you’re referring to Halliburton’s no-bid contract – which was a situation where there was no other company who could have provided those services, anyway.
posted by
AaronB
on August 3, 2006 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Read You Loud And Clear
I agree that religious freedom means respecting everyone's faith - even more so, that religion is a deeply personal matter and therefore pressure of any kind on someone to convert is absolutely inappropriate.
I appreciate your passion, I'm just not sure it will convert any conservatives. They don't view themselves as greedy, so I think maybe a different, more respectful tact would get your point across.
I really respect your views, though. Maybe you just need to frame them in positive "This is what I believe" statements.
Just food for thought. Keep writing!! 
--Shawn, "Tall & Skinny Politico"
posted by
TallAndSkinnyPoet
on August 2, 2006 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
AaronB
Believe it or not your basic idea agrees with mine, but you made a few mistakes there.
First off when you said "Free markets – held in balance by competition, public disclosure, and some government regulating", was very accurate and has a level of truth to it. of course Bush has basically tried to take away all the government regulating and help some companies to not have to worry about any kind of competition and so the economy has gone into the toilet and the poor and working class are being screwed.
You don't understand the difference between greed and free market, but that is not unexpected. In theory Communisms should have worked, but due to greed being part of human nature, it failed. The same can be said about free market. it should work much better than it does, but since there is too much greed there it fails to live up to its full potential. Why? Because people are too concerned with doing things for their own personal short term gain and not thinking about the future or doing what needs to be done to help others.You can actually have free market that is not based on greed but based on working for the potential long term growth and health of your country, which would be the patriotic thing to do don't you think?
And democracy itself does not have to rely on capitalism to get by. It is partially because of such belief that so many seem to want to let the Big Businesses run the country just because they have the money and that is when we really start seeing the big problem start up and all goes to Hell.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 2, 2006 at 7:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
I read you comment fully. And I wrote what I felt was a needed reply. You are one of those who are being openly fooled by Bush. There has not been another 9/11 because such a thing is very hard for the terrorists to do (Taking years and years of preparation), not because of what Bush has been doing. If another such event was in the works, it will happen and nothing Bush is doing will stop it. Just look at how far apart the two attacks on the World Trade Center were.
Look at the facts and show me how it is not because Bush pushed us into Iraq that the violence has escalated to where it is. 9/11 could have been used to actually fix the problems and get the world working together to settle the Middle East, but Bush took us into Iraq and destroyed all hope of that. and if WW3 is what we see starting up, it will be because Bush did not do what was right and what was best for the world our any single country, but what his own personal greed and selfishness led him to do.
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 2, 2006 at 7:35 AM
| link to this | reply
DeInntes (sorry about the misspelling)
Of course the bombings throughout the world count! But on the flip side, what matters to most Americans is their own safety (we are selfish critters, after all). So the whole business about keeping the conflict off American territory is what most Americans expect of their government. I would imagine Bush was thinking he would engage them in Iraq, keep them busy there, instead of back here on American soil.
That said, the Iraq war is certainly no guarantee for keeping Americans safe by any stretch of the imagination. The terrorists use guerilla tactics, are very mobile, have malcontents located throughout the world, disregard the rule of law pretty much everywhere, and would be very happy to blow up bombs simultaneously in a slew of countries, given the chance.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 1, 2006 at 5:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, as I mentioned in my comment (did you READ it???)
I have had some reservations about the Iraq war and think the money could have been better spent elsewhere. But, I for sure fully support efforts in Afghanistan, and believe even more could have been done there . . . .
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 1, 2006 at 5:50 PM
| link to this | reply
For a start
The free markets, or “greed” as detractors say, is not a perfect motivator (and not a moral one), but it’s better than the alternatives. Free markets – held in balance by competition, public disclosure, and some government regulating – result in even the poor doing much better than they would under a communist dictatorship that supposedly exists to help them. What other alternatives are there? It reminds me of the old saying: Democracy is the worst kind of government ever invented – except for all the others.
posted by
AaronB
on July 31, 2006 at 10:27 PM
| link to this | reply
DeIntinis
I am not in the least worried about illegal immigrants. That issue is truly one of the least important ones out there and is mostly being used to distract us.
I do not and have never supported any terrorist attacks. If you actual pay attention to how it has all gone down, right after 9/11 things slowed down as we actually fought the real terrorists and went after them. Then we went into Iraq and allowed the real terrorists to run free. It was after that point that all hell started breaking loose all around the world as the terrorists were being shown that the U.S. was not serious about going after them because Bush wanted to go into Iraq. The Middle East had quieted down and there was hope to work things out peacefully. After 9/11 we had a great opportunity to work with the rest of the world and get that area under control. Then we went into Iraq and all hope for that was lost and everything started going downhill from there.
Simply put, because of Bush's fundamentalist conservative views, he pushed us into Iraq in the wrong way, at the wrong time for the wrong reasons and the rest of the world is paying the price.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 31, 2006 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
Things were setteling down in the Middle East until Bush took us into Iraq.
This is 100% fact.
And the reasons Bush took us into Iraq are what I talked about here.
As for the Muslims being peaceful or not, that is my father's thing not mine. I feel there are no more or less peaceful than the Christians or Jews. I am sorry that I do not believe in discrimination or judging the whole of a group on the actions of a few, and the terrorists only make up a small portion of the whole.
I really wish you could see Bush for what he is and the basic ideas of the Fundamentalist Conservative for what they really are. Bush has done more to get us into having a new World War than any person or group of people out there. We should never have gone into Iraq the way we did, when we did or why we did. All that did was set everything into motion that has led up to this ever escalating conflict.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 31, 2006 at 7:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Busy on foreign soil?
I am sure the attacks in India and last year in London were all right with you? Have you also forgotten that we have millions and millions of illegal immigrants in this country with no one really knowing how many or who they are. The only thing Bush is doing is wasting money that would be better spent protecting our borders. http://www.prweb.com/releases/minutemen/illegalimmigration/prweb418456.htm
posted by
DeIntinis
on July 31, 2006 at 7:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Good comment Janes!
posted by
sarooster
on July 31, 2006 at 6:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka you've gone for over 15 days without posting this
bloviating nonsense. What. Did you have a bad day, and out popped all this vitriole?
If we head into WW3, it won't be because of Bush or "conservative fundamentalists." Rather, it will be because a bunch of terrorist rabble rouses with no regard for life decided to foment a war by invading a sovreign country and kidnapping soldiers. It will be because these same terrorist animals use civilian women and children as human shields, with no regard -- again -- for human life. It will be because a tiny country of a mere 5.4 million souls (mostly Jews) -- for whatever reason -- is the brunt of world hatred.
If we head into WW3, it will be because a variety of terrorist groups seem intent on wrecking havoc throughout the world. You and your dad fixate on the supposed peacefulness of Islamic folk in comparison to the supposed violence of Christians. I think he (and you) are stretching when you come up with those statements. For the most part it's the other way around. But that said, it's the Islamic terrorists who, day after day, are making headlines with their violence. If anything, THEY are going to foment WW3.
I applaud Bush for keeping the terrorists busy on foreign soil. I have always been uneasy about the Iraq war, for a number of reasons, but at the very least the terrorists have not been able to pull off a repeat of 9/11.
And regarding the Islamic terrorists -- how many peace treaties have they broken over the decades? How many UN accords? Way too many to count. So who's going to bring on WW3? You tell me.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 31, 2006 at 5:56 PM
| link to this | reply