Communism Gaining Ground?

[Timebuilder]

it started heading South where taxes and payscales were lower. In Raleigh, NC in the 80s and 90s every thrid person you met was from Ohio/NY/WV and left to come here for work. The national minimum wage was the same in WV and Ohio as it was in NC. The EPA laws were the same. But with the tax breaks and generally lower payscales (nonunion at first) greed drove them down here.

Thank you for providing an excellent example of my point: costs drive production elsewhere. Nonunion and right to work states, along with good weather and a work ethic drove manufacturing from the northeast and northcentral regions.

What sent them is GREED my man.

What you call "greed" is simply a reaction to changing costs. How many lawsuits do you see in Asia becuase there are offensive calendars on the wall of an office?

Thanks for the help in making my case.



As far as feminism is concerned, here are some core principles, taken from signs seen at rallys:

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"

"free abortions on demand"

"wicca for free abortions"

"Socialist workers for abortion"

"lesbians unite for reproductive rights"

I guess that statement isn't too horribly far from the truth, isn't it?

 

[mar]

It's pretty simple in your little world

Disappointed in Timebuilder.

Heartened by Snakum.

I'm out.

 

[Timebuilder]

Jobs leaving the US are like a criminal investigation. Those jobs had motive and opportunity.

Had they not had reason to leave, they would be right where they were.

Who wants to sew Wranglers, when you can get a check from the government for each of your illegitimate children?

 

[Typhoon1244]

As far as feminism is concerned, here are some core principles, taken from signs seen at rallys...

How about Buchanan's Hitleresque speech at the '92 Republican convention? Was he representing the core ideals of his party?

Or can you admit that even within any party, there are liberals and conservatives...extremists?

How about David Duke? Staunch Republican. Can I use him as a model for the prototypical Republican?

How about Al Sharpton? Does he embody the ideals of the Democratic party?

The problem, T.B., is that your pendelum swung from full-scale left to full-scale right. You'd have a clearer view if you'd stabilized somewhere in the middle.

 

[Timebuilder]

I don't know how we moved from a discussion of feminism to a comparison of various individuals making political statements. Maybe I missed something. That's happened before.

The feminist movement has some pretty well defined ideas that are accepted as gospel withing their ranks. That's what keeps them a marginal entity that the mainstream media holds up as "the opinion of women". They don't represent most women, and their ideas have done a great deal of harm to the American family.

In fact, the conservative group Concerned Women for America has far more members than NOW ever did, and it is growing, while NOW is shrinking.

However, you will never hear Katie Couric mention CWA, or interview their leaders.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[VNugget]

I believe he compared the most vocal radical extremists of a group against the mainstream of that group, and noted how the former doesn't speak for the latter.

You agreed with him in the last sentence of your second paragraph.

---

It may be because I was raised in the filthy liberal commie indoctrination centers which are our public schools that I hold silly ideas like that women are people too, but I suspect most women also hold that opinion.

 

[Timebuilder]

You agreed with him in the last sentence of your second paragraph.

which was...

They don't represent most women, and their ideas have done a great deal of harm to the American family.

I don't follow you.

The feminist movement speaks for all of the members of the feminist movement. Is has a singular personality: the NOW organization. Other organizations that represent the views of women are not seen by NOW or the media as being a part of the feminist movement, and as such are deemed to receive no airing of their views. It is as if they don't even exist.

So, while you can have a democrat or a republican espouse a view which does not hold sway for the entire party, you cannot, by their own definition, have that occur in feminism. Because of this, if you suggest a view point that is not a part of the femininst line, as defined by NOW, you are not even a feminist.

Have I managed to make that difference clear?

 

[VNugget]

Is has a singular personality: the NOW organization.

Well if you accept that premise, then everything you say is true. However, I don't, and I don't think many people outside of NOW do, either. In fact, the first time I heard that claim is when I read your post.

The nation that women are not inferior to men and should have the same rights has been professed by a huge variety of people for the past century and a half, and casting them all under the mold of the radical branch of the feminist movement is an insult. It is analogous, for example, to ignoring all Christian ideals outside of those espoused by the KKK and recognizing them as representatives of Christianity. Hey -- they think so! But no one gave them the authority to define Christianity, just as no one gave NOW the right to define feminism.

 

[Timebuilder]

Certainly the idea of women having rights started long before NOW. Your post provides a good comparison between the "truth" and what NOW says, by their actions and words, is "the truth". The world according to NOW, if you will.

According to NOW and the mass media, we are left with NOW as the "singular voice" of feminism. Period. They have completely co-opted the feminist pulpit.

You only have to read a major newspaper of watch "Today" whenever there is an issue of "women's rights". NOW is the sole organization that is allowed to speak on this topic. Think about it: how many times over the past decade did you hear or see Patricia Ireland? Now ask yourself, "who is the leader of Concerned Women for America?" Even I can't tell you who it is, as I last heard her interviewed on a talk show three years ago.

As I said before, if you disagree with NOW on a point about feminism, they say you are not really a feminist. NOW isn't the first group to do this. If you believe the Bible, and its doctrine, then you see that there are standards for making one a Christian, by definition. If you are espousing the views of David Koresh, for example, you aren't a Christian. This would be "Christianity according to the Bible, or Biblical Christianity.

For the majority that identify themselves as feminists, there is a very real doctrine that they follow, and the media sees this doctrine as the one source on feminism.

While a political party may have "planks" for their "platform", any old party member with enough visibility and the opportunity can speak and be heard, and still be acknowleged as a party member. This doesn't happen with NOW, and it doesn't hapen that any old "feminist" is interviewed on TV.

The basic stuctures of NOW and a party are really very different.

The core principles are seen as immutable at NOW. That's why you see those signs at rallys. They aren't just there, they are APPROVED to be there. They are officially sanctioned.

During the Lewinsky mess, and going back to Paula Jones and the other Clinton women, they really had some problems at NOW. None of the women, except for Hillary, were women that NOW could hold up as their ideal of strong, independent women. And when women charge that they have been abused or molested, they are always right, accoding to NOW. When Paula Jones and the other stories surfaced, NOW was strangely silent. They set aside ALL of their core principles to keep Clinton in the White House, because they also vote as a democrat block. Patricia Ireland was eventually interviewed, and said that she "didn't believe" the charges were true. From there, it has been straight downhill for NOW.


To tie this together, Pat Robertson's statement about feminism is what NOW, the one voice of feminism in America, is all about. For NOW, his statement was about who they really are.

Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Not everyone agrees that this is the face of feminism, but you won't see any other faces in the media who don't come from this viewpoint of independence (don't need a man), wicca (which is witchcraft), abortion on demand (kill their children), socialism (destroy capitalism), and become lesbians (see: "don't need a man").

A real women's organization, like CWA, you won't see.

 

[VivaZapata]

Let's not forget how we drove off American manufacturing to the third world by means of mimium wage laws and the EPA.

?????? ooookay.

American manufacturing is driven off by its own greed and lack of responsibility to the very communities that built them. Yes, there IS a mutual benefit between industry and labor. "Those pesky and annoying minimum wage and environmental laws..... let's just move to some third world country and exploit and poison their people. If we encounter any resistance, perhaps we can reach in our back pocket and our appointed president can send "advisors" to train and equip some...uhm...let's call 'em "FREEDOM FIGHTERS"!(that'll get the support from the masses of glassy eyed pseudo-patriots' ).. to advance our profit agenda by force. It didn't quite work like we wanted to in Nicaragua, but we can try again."

The better solution would have been to trust the free market, and use common sense when writing laws that affect our jobs. Of course, when you are a university professor or a politician, your job won't leave when manufacturing is driven off to Maylaysia.

Let the market dictate public policy, yeah , let's put the chickens in charge of the chicken feed.

Your attempt to turn the things 180 degrees from common sense failed miserably. The export of jobs is caused by companies that want carte blanche to operate without regard to people and environment, not due to common sense laws regarding wage and environmental protection.