Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The K Street Project

Politics-American K-Street Project Tom DeLay Grover Norquist

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#21 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 01:27 PM

Quick question, Delvo: List five members of the Democratic leadership who "slip in something about how evil and ruinous to us all Bigbizness is almost every single time they open their mouths".

Second quick question: which is more important, words or deeds?

#22 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:17 PM

Quote

Delvo: how could anyone possibly escape the conclusion that either they're [Democrats are] lividly anti-capitalist or they at least want to be seen as such? It dominates their minds and speech so much they seem to wear it proudly as a badge of honor, so why look for ways out of it instead of going along with the choice they've obviously made for themselves?

Certainly, if one gets most of one's impressions of the Democratic party filtered through Rush Limbaugh, one believes this to be true. One would be wrong, however.

The reality is, as Anarch says:

Quote

there is a major movement within the liberal/progressive milieu to limit the power and effectiveness of large corporations but that movement has yet to reach the leadership of the Democratic party and probably never will. Given the staggering corruption of the Republican party right now -- to repeat Spectacles' remarks, this is the new Gilded Age -- it's conceivable the Democrats might make a tactical decision to renounce all special interest/corporate funding, thereby setting themselves up as the party of righteousness. [And I think they'd be right to do it, too.] Given the cowardice of the DNC/DLC crew, however, I'm not holding my breath.

Seriously, if you check out the support Democratic incumbents receive from lobbyists, you'll find it's no less than the amount given to Republican incumbents. The minute a representative or senator hits DC, his back is scratched and few can resist returning the favor--regardless of party.

So what's the big deal about the K Street Project? It's an effort to install on K Street the same sort of ideologues as Santorum, who by the way is heavily involved.


http://www.washingto...confessore.html
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#23 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 05:26 PM

Delvo, on Oct 2 2005, 06:18 PM, said:

Anarch, on Oct 2 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

Given the staggering corruption of the Republican party right now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me, but that's "Republicanic". :sarcasm: So now you're "contaminated".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, that's better than what I was thinking.  I'm contaminated so I'm out of the discussion.

#24 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 02 October 2005 - 09:07 PM

Quote

Anarch Posted Today, 01:27 PM
  Quick question, Delvo: List five members of the Democratic leadership who "slip in something about how evil and ruinous to us all Bigbizness is almost every single time they open their mouths".

Second quick question: which is more important, words or deeds?

I'd be interested in reading your answers,  to your questions.

Rureddy

#25 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 12:57 AM

Eloisel and Delvo: You do realize that the name of the Democratic Party is, in fact, the Democratic Party, while the name of the Republican Party is not, in fact, the Republicanic Party, right?  I mean, I don't really want to get in the way of whatever little spasm of righteousness you're undergoing right now, but a little factuality and a little context (or history if you prefer) might help.  And eloisel, I find it odd that you evinced obvious pride at correcting people's naming of the president (in an AQG thread I can't locate atm) but failed to correctly name one of the two (major) political parties in the United States -- and then took umbrage at the correction.

RuReddy1: I'll certainly answer the second question, namely that for politicians the deeds are generally far more important than words.  As a rule of thumb, I don't give a crap about the rhetoric used, I care about what policies are being implemented.  There are exceptions -- most of which examples would be banned from EI so I can't illustrate -- but what's of import to me is what actually happens, not what people say ought to/might/is/could happen.

So which do you think is more important?

As to the first, given that I wasn't the one making the claims of the prevalence and potency of such attitudes, I'll wait until Delvo cobbles together his list.  I'm sure it'll be edifying.  You can play too if you'd like -- by all means, if such people are as common as Delvo claims, they shouldn't be hard to rustle up.

Edited by Anarch, 03 October 2005 - 12:58 AM.


#26 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 06:48 AM

Anarch, on Oct 3 2005, 05:57 AM, said:

Eloisel and Delvo: You do realize that the name of the Democratic Party is, in fact, the Democratic Party, while the name of the Republican Party is not, in fact, the Republicanic Party, right?  I mean, I don't really want to get in the way of whatever little spasm of righteousness you're undergoing right now, but a little factuality and a little context (or history if you prefer) might help.  And eloisel, I find it odd that you evinced obvious pride at correcting people's naming of the president (in an AQG thread I can't locate atm) but failed to correctly name one of the two (major) political parties in the United States -- and then took umbrage at the correction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would be incorrect.  The same person who corrected me on the use of Democrat instead of Democratic corrected me on the use of George Bush, Jr. instead of George W. Bush, and it was not in the AQG forum but in this one.  I might add that I don't believe the purpose held nearly as much nastiness as yours.

#27 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 07:02 AM

In the interest of peacemaking, since I'm the one who started this thread, I want to point out to Anarch the phrase that I think offended Eloisel and Delvo:

Quote

Anarch: I don't know if you're aware of the history of the term "Democrat" party, but let's just say that IMO there's enough bad blood there to automatically contaminate anyone who uses it.

In particular, I think the use of the word "contaminate" is what made this particularly insulting to Eloisel and Delvo.

I ain't fussing at anyone, just trying to point out to Anarch that he might consider explaining this or softening the wording.

I'd especially be interested in hearing about this history of term "Democrat" party. I confess that I myself am ignorant about this.   :blush:
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#28 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:05 AM

The history's pretty simple. "Democratic" has come to mean, in most people's minds, representative modernized governments such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and much of Europe. Therefor, along with that meaning, anything that's not, or is opposed to, anything "democratic" is all the rest: tyrannies run by drug or jewel "lords", dictatorships & so-called "Communist" regimes, empires held together by force, chaotic tribal war zones, and other such nastiness. So a distinction between the name for the general type of government and the name of the American political party has become necessary to those who don't want the names to essentially equate all other American parties with dictatorships and thug governments and such.

How in the world this is supposed to be insulting and offensive to Democrats, I can't make any sense out of. :wacko:

#29 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:21 AM

Quote

Anarch Posted Today, 12:57 AM
RuReddy1: I'll certainly answer the second question, namely that for politicians the deeds are generally far more important than words. As a rule of thumb, I don't give a crap about the rhetoric used, I care about what policies are being implemented. There are exceptions -- most of which examples would be banned from EI so I can't illustrate -- but what's of import to me is what actually happens, not what people say ought to/might/is/could happen.

So which do you think is more important?

Sorry but I am unable to participate in this thread as I am also contaminated.  I always use the word 'Democrat' which I thought was respectful,  I prefer that over liberal. But I can now start using liberal or an assortment of other names, no problem for me.

As a rule of thumb, I never ask a question that I can't answer,  particularly of a Democrat.   :eek2:   Damn  contamination is taking over!!!!!   I mean liberal,  liberal, liberal, liberal......   :lol:

RuReddy

#30 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:26 AM

RuReddy1, on Oct 3 2005, 08:21 AM, said:

Quote

Anarch Posted Today, 12:57 AM
RuReddy1: I'll certainly answer the second question, namely that for politicians the deeds are generally far more important than words. As a rule of thumb, I don't give a crap about the rhetoric used, I care about what policies are being implemented. There are exceptions -- most of which examples would be banned from EI so I can't illustrate -- but what's of import to me is what actually happens, not what people say ought to/might/is/could happen.

So which do you think is more important?

Sorry but I am unable to participate in this thread as I am also contaminated.  I always use the word 'Democrat' which I thought was respectful,  I prefer that over liberal. But I can now start using liberal or an assortment of other names, no problem for me.

As a rule of thumb, I never ask a question that I can't answer,  particularly of a Democrat.   :eek2:   Damn  contamination is taking over!!!!!   I mean liberal,  liberal, liberal, liberal......   :lol:

RuReddy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



You aren't helping, Ru, by confusing the terms. The issue is not with calling Democrats Democrats. The issue is with referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party.

I've attempted to search the history of the term "Democrat Party" to find out why it's offensive, but I've had no luck. I'm hoping Anarch will explain. Delvo has offered an explanation, but I'm curious to know if that's what Anarch had in mind.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#31 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:39 AM

^^ I have no problem calling the Democratic (by extension of the word Democrat) Party the Liberal Party.  Works for me.

  

RuReddy

#32 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:43 AM

RuReddy1, on Oct 3 2005, 08:39 AM, said:

^^ I have no problem calling the Democratic (by extension of the word Democrat) Party the Liberal Party.  Works for me.

   

RuReddy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Did you not understand what I wrote?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#33 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:44 AM

"Liberal" and "Democrat/Democratic" aren't necessarily the same thing.  I'm a Democrat these days, but I'm not "a liberal" - I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others.

I don't think that Republican and conservative are synonymous, either.  Bush, for example, is Republican, but you'd be hard pressed to claim he's conservative. :p

I'm not offended by either Democrat or Democratic.  Either one's a lot better than what I'm used to hearing on the Yahoo forums. :)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#34 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:40 AM

Eloisel said:

You would be incorrect. The same person who corrected me on the use of Democrat instead of Democratic corrected me on the use of George Bush, Jr. instead of George W. Bush, and it was not in the AQG forum but in this one. I might add that I don't believe the purpose held nearly as much nastiness as yours.

Let me try this again: I said, or meant to say, that you referred to this correction in an AQG thread that I now cannot find.  My understanding from that thread was that you were taking pride in the fact that you'd corrected the name of the President in another person's post, although if you say it was the way around then I apologize for the confusion.  And there's no particular "nastiness" here;* you seem to want to be taken seriously, and fair enough, so I'm letting you know that use of the term "Democrat Party" will cause you to be dismissed out-of-hand in most quarters where you'd like to make your case.  Like it or not, the term contaminates your post, much the same as if I'd called the GOP the "Rethuglican" Party, or the President "Dumbya" or whatever doofus name-calling is circulating the left nowadays.

* Trust me that should I decide to be nasty, you'll know.

Spectacles, on Oct 3 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

I've attempted to search the history of the term "Democrat Party" to find out why it's offensive, but I've had no luck. I'm hoping Anarch will explain. Delvo has offered an explanation, but I'm curious to know if that's what Anarch had in mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


It's hard to find the evidence nowadays, unfortunately, so I'm still searching for a good link, but the short answer is this: it's a relatively recent coinage (c. 1995) by one of the first modern groups of College Republicans (I think it was the Texas crew but I could well be wrong), mainstreamed by Bob Dole in the 1996 election and subsequently by Rush Limbaugh, as a way of delegitimizing the Democratic Party, specifically to argue the contention that the Democrats were no longer representative of anything democratic.  Delvo's whitewash is nice and all, but a) it's ahistorical, b) it omits the key obverse, and c) tough: the name of the institution is the Democratic Party and that's that.  Given that the name of the party goes back to 1832, I'd say any argument about how "democratic" has "come to mean representative, modernized government" is about 170 years out of date.

You're free to call it whatever you want, of course.  If you choose to refer to it in unsavory ways, or ways that have an unsavory history, expect to be responded to appropriately.

[And yes, since it apparently wasn't obvious: a person belonging to the Democratic party is a "Democrat".  The adjectival form is "Democratic", capital "D", as distinct from "democratic", in the meaning that Delvo so gallantly provided.]

RuReddy1 said:

As a rule of thumb, I never ask a question that I can't answer, particularly of a Democrat.

Then debating with you must be a spectacularly pointless endeavor.  I can't imagine what it would be like to have my whole conversational life circumscribed by the limits of my present knowledge; seems pretty damn agoraphobic -- or maybe claustrophilic -- if you ask me.

RuReddy1 said:

I have no problem calling the Democratic (by extension of the word Democrat) Party the Liberal Party. Works for me.

Let's try this again really slowly:

1) The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the "by extension of the word Democrat" Party (since it isn't -- "Democrat" the noun is a backformation of the party name IIRC), nor is it the Liberal Party.  "Democrat" is the correct nominal form of a member of that party.  This really isn't that hard.

2) The issue here is of giving things their proper names.  Certain circumlocutions are acceptable -- e.g. "GOP" for the Republican Party, since they've adopted that as an acceptable term, although they'd certainly have been within their rights to dispute that -- and certain ones are not, depending on history and context.

3) The Democratic Party as a whole isn't liberal.  Sorry.  There are liberal elements within it, of course, but as a whole the party's pretty much centrist and has been since Clinton took office (and more importantly since Clinton's pals in the DNC began the concerted push to the middle).  I'd love it if it were liberal, natch, but it isn't -- and frankly, it's not even particularly close.

#35 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 01:56 PM

Quote

Anarch: It's hard to find the evidence nowadays, unfortunately, so I'm still searching for a good link, but the short answer is this: it's a relatively recent coinage (c. 1995) by one of the first modern groups of College Republicans (I think it was the Texas crew but I could well be wrong), mainstreamed by Bob Dole in the 1996 election and subsequently by Rush Limbaugh, as a way of delegitimizing the Democratic Party, specifically to argue the contention that the Democrats were no longer representative of anything democratic.

Ah! Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. If it's good enough for Rush Limbaugh, it must stink to high heaven. ;)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#36 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 06:16 PM

Anarch:

Whitley County Democrat Party

Dubois County Democrat's
With their link to "Brief History of Democrat Party"

Nassau County Democrat Party

Suffolk County Democrat Party

Will you be writing them regarding their offence and contamination, or are you satisfied with releasing your spasm of self-righteousness on me?



Waterpanther:
My apologies to you.  First, it was a typo on my part.  Second, I had no idea there was a negative connotation to Democrat Party.  Third, I thought you considered being called anti-corporate a slam.  Fourth, yes, I have noticed that several posters have cooled it with the Bush name calling and I do very much appreciate it.

#37 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 07:34 PM

Now, as to why I believe the Democratic Party to be anti-corporate:

Terms like:
"give away to corporate America"
"Corporate Welfare"
"at the expense of the working people"
"corporate lapdog"
"corporate greed"
"anti-union"

Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis - Democratic

Quote

“President Bush’s give-away-to-corporate-America environmental policies are pointed attacks on the middle-class.  Under the Bush Administration, our nation’s most toxic waste sites are not being cleaned up.

Speech at the Boston Chamber of Commerce

Quote

And above all, don't forget the prime directive, the philosopher's stone, the alpha and omega, the answer to every question: never stop cutting taxes on the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful corporations, come hell or high water, in war as in peace, and in debt as well as in surplus.

Text of John Kerry's Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention

Quote

And we're going to return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare, and we will make government live by the rule that every family has to live by: Pay as you go.

Kerry Remarks at the UNITY 2004 Conference

Quote

That's why John Edwards and I intend to restore fiscal discipline, not only by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but by closing tax loopholes that are nothing more than corporate welfare, and by making government live by the same rules that most families in America try to live by: pay as you go. We will restore that to the American political system.

Democrat Clark Targets U.S. Corporate Tax Shelters

Quote

Retired general Wesley Clark, on the rise in two recent polls of the Democratic presidential race, on Thursday vowed to end "corporate welfare" by cracking down on the shelters U.S. companies use to avoid taxes and increasing the penalties faced by offenders.

On The issues - Howard Dean on Tax Reform

Quote

End corporate welfare, close loopholes, pay fair share. (Jan 2004)

Pelosi: ‘Republican Corporate Tax Bill Uses Tax Dollars to Ship American Jobs Overseas’

Quote

“This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interests. This is not, as the expression goes, “this little piggy goes to market.” This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud, the Republicans can’t even think straight. If you listen closely, you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them?

Congressman Hilda L. Solis, Democrat
John Kerry -  Democratic presidential hopeful
Wesley Clark -  Democratic presidential hopeful
Howard Dean - Democratic Party Chairman
Nancy Pelosi - House Democratic Leader

#38 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 07:45 PM

Quote

My apologies to you. First, it was a typo on my part. Second, I had no idea there was a negative connotation to Democrat Party. Third, I thought you considered being called anti-corporate a slam. Fourth, yes, I have noticed that several posters have cooled it with the Bush name calling and I do very much appreciate it.

Appreciated.  Unfortunately, there's such currency with "Democrat Party" among Republicans and conservatives that anyone who wasn't familiar with the origins and deprecating usage of the term might well think it was acceptable.  Otherwise, for the most part, I tend to regard "anti-corporate" as a compliment, not a slam.

Edited to add:

Delvo, we're still waiting for your response to Anarch, to wit:

Quote

Quick question, Delvo: List five members of the Democratic leadership who "slip in something about how evil and ruinous to us all Bigbizness is almost every single time they open their mouths".

Edited by waterpanther, 03 October 2005 - 07:48 PM.

Posted Image

#39 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:21 PM

eloisel, on Oct 3 2005, 07:34 PM, said:

Now, as to why I believe the Democratic Party to be anti-corporate:

Terms like:
"give away to corporate America"
"Corporate Welfare"
"at the expense of the working people"
"corporate lapdog"
"corporate greed"
"anti-union"

Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis - Democratic

Quote

“President Bush’s give-away-to-corporate-America environmental policies are pointed attacks on the middle-class.  Under the Bush Administration, our nation’s most toxic waste sites are not being cleaned up.

Speech at the Boston Chamber of Commerce

Quote

And above all, don't forget the prime directive, the philosopher's stone, the alpha and omega, the answer to every question: never stop cutting taxes on the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful corporations, come hell or high water, in war as in peace, and in debt as well as in surplus.

Text of John Kerry's Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention

Quote

And we're going to return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare, and we will make government live by the rule that every family has to live by: Pay as you go.

Kerry Remarks at the UNITY 2004 Conference

Quote

That's why John Edwards and I intend to restore fiscal discipline, not only by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but by closing tax loopholes that are nothing more than corporate welfare, and by making government live by the same rules that most families in America try to live by: pay as you go. We will restore that to the American political system.

Democrat Clark Targets U.S. Corporate Tax Shelters

Quote

Retired general Wesley Clark, on the rise in two recent polls of the Democratic presidential race, on Thursday vowed to end "corporate welfare" by cracking down on the shelters U.S. companies use to avoid taxes and increasing the penalties faced by offenders.

On The issues - Howard Dean on Tax Reform

Quote

End corporate welfare, close loopholes, pay fair share. (Jan 2004)

Pelosi: ‘Republican Corporate Tax Bill Uses Tax Dollars to Ship American Jobs Overseas’

Quote

“This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interests. This is not, as the expression goes, “this little piggy goes to market.” This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud, the Republicans can’t even think straight. If you listen closely, you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them?

Congressman Hilda L. Solis, Democrat
John Kerry -  Democratic presidential hopeful
Wesley Clark -  Democratic presidential hopeful
Howard Dean - Democratic Party Chairman
Nancy Pelosi - House Democratic Leader

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



See, I read all of that and remember why I tend to vote Democrat(ic). :)

I don't like corporate welfare, don't think corporate greed is a virtue, don't like anti-unionism (if that's a word), don't care for corporate lapdogs, and, in short, I feel a stronger allegiance with working people. I just wish that most Democrats actually walked the walk.

One of the reasons that lobbying irks me so much is that it is just another way for the table to be tilted toward the powerful.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#40 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:11 PM

The problem with anti-corporate is that it has become a catch all type of phrase.  I work on Economic Development Projects, as I've mentioned many times, and I don't see those as give-aways-to-Corporate-America and corporate welfare but a partnership for the good of the public at large.  I am generally anti-union because of personal experiences but do understand that there are some industries and areas of the country where a worker without a union is treated pretty badly.  I'll agree there is a problem with corporate greed.  I'll agree that out-sourcing is a problem and further state that outsourcing is not always to a foreign country.  I, too, feel a strong allegiance with working people - I've been one for 40 years and will probably be for another 15 years if I live that long.  But, thanks to corporations I've had work for 40 years.  Thanks to corporations I have a few of the luxuries of modern technology.  Thanks to corporations there are stores I can afford to shop at for some very important basics to me like food and shampoo.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, K-Street Project, Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users