[Kyran]

Techno, I'm glad we've found some common ground to stand on. This is absolutely the most important issue of our time.

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why do you people buy into this nonsense? Where are the facts? Just a lot of emotional nonsense with nothing to back it up.[/b]

Since when have you used facts to prove anything?


------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Zeebadee,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zeebadee,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Clear Channel wasn't fined for Howard's free speech. It was fined for misuse of the public airwaves, which they were licensed to use. If Howard wants to sit in his office and say anything he wants, I have no problem with that[/b]

Oh, well we are so glad you've permitted Howard to say what he wants within the scope of his office! When will Howard be able to speak on the radio without the FCC fining the company he works for? A fat and lazy government does not serve the people.

And if you say, "When he behaves himself" then I will say, "When will the FCC behave? Is the Constitution not the Supreme Law? Then why do you support one law and not the other?"

Saying what the government doesn't want to be heard is misuse of public airwaves? I could see if I opened up my own station right next to another and broadcasted over their broadcast. That would be a misuse, but your argument holds no water.

The Constitution requires Congress to respect the content of broadcasters (Freedom of Speech) while it permits Congress to license (Regulation of Commerce) the space in which said broadcasters may transmit. The FCC administers an obligatory priviledge and dodges the Constitutional Bounds set forth by our founders.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Wrong again. The driver wasn't fired for defending himself, he was fired for violating the company rules he agreed to when he took the job. What company could stay in business if it couldn't punish employees that violated established company policies??

Indeed what wage-slaver could stay in his plantation if he could not torture, oversee, and exploit the wage slave? How could he profit without the instruments of indenture?

Almost all of the jobs in this country have these exact same company rules and you know it. The only exceptions are security, law enforcement, and military. Why is this? The rules exist because all companies are required to have Workman's Comp on their employees; an obligation for using the priviledge of employment. WC insurance will charge those companies in the event one of their employees is known to use a weapon.

That's why he was fired. It's not about company policy...it's about corporatist policy.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Again, wrong. The government allows employers to offer jobs to workers for hourly wages and benefits. No worker is ever forced to either take, or stay with a job he isn't satisfied with. Unions routinely deal with this particular problem, usually pretty well.

Truly these unions bring some justice to the working man. It is better that they obtain justice than for us to go without; for our government has not lifted a finger against these crimes.

How is a man supposed to live with zoning laws forcing him into the workplace? Had these citizens been able to own their own means of production, do you think they would slave for the almighty dollar?

You can try to blame it on life, but life isn't the one sending an inspector out to fine people for putting windmills in their backyards.

A wage slaver can legally coerce an employee into doing work for nothing. Salary employees do variable amounts of work at a set pay rate, even though some number of them work at a variable pay rate. No one can dispute this.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Wrong. Every business needs to make enough money to pay ALL it's bills, taxes included, and make a profit over and above that. If it doesn't, guess what? It doesn't stay in business.

Then what of Boeing's $20 billion dollar bailout? Would you have me believe that it was a gift of God? I have never seen a miracle like the one given by President Bush and this Assembly. To take money from the government and give to such a poor defenseless corporation, he must be Robin Hood in the flesh. When he gave taxpayer money to 9/11 victims, it was the will of the people; for they care.

Mind you that I would aspire to be like your great leader. That is, if I were able, I would take his money and give back to the taxpayer's coffers what he stole.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, If you think that getting rid of corporate income taxes would lower everyone's individual tax bill, think again. The government would merely raise taxes on EVERYONE to make up the shortfall.

Surely you speak the truth. Any threat to the government's obesity would be met with it's drones bringing it more fat and lard. How these busy bees care about their queen! They'll not have her starve, even if she makes other nations miniscule by comparison in weight.

What foolishness there is in feeding the hungry beast. Do you think it will go on a diet as long as you put food in it's mouth? Government is like a dog, in that it will eat and eat until it dies or there is no more food.

Lowering corporate income taxes wouldn't lower the amount everyone pays in taxes? That's just illogical. And your remark that the government WOULD DO something else to tax people is a poor excuse. You're full of it.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Again, wrong. Your own example of Pantry making their own soda product demonstrates that it's easier to start up a business.

Nonsense. Pantry's corporate owner didn't start up a business.

Pantry INC's quarterly report:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040805/ptry10-q.html

If you read this, it's quite clear that the company started it's own line of soda (Celeste) products. Try not to pull arguments out of your ass.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Now this is just downright confusing. You list 4 ways to make an income, but then refer to 3 other items.

Oops. I mistyped. Here is how the paragraph should read:

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran,@
Government schools do one thing that no one seems to disagree with. They teach kids to get your diploma, get into college, and get a job. There are 4 legal ways to make an income; A) investing money, B) selling property, C) jobs, and D) starting a business. You'll notice that items A, B, and D require you to possess something. The school system does not teach people how to do these other items...but they'll teach you how to go get exploited (Item C.)[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee,
And this is bad because?? Would you really want your next door neighbor opening an auto body shop in his garage? How about raising cattle in his back yard? What would happen to your property value if he did so?[/quote]

Why do you tempt me? I don't have a problem with people living independently on their own land. That's their right as free citizens.

I'll tell you a thing about land value. If my neighbor had an auto body garage, I wouldn't have to drive into the business sector to get mine repaired. And if he were a butcher, I wouldn't have to drive to the grocery store for steak. To me that neighbor is priceless, but to the fat and wealthy competition and all the wage slavers in America his life is worth nothing.

You are wise to worry about how your neighbor's yard smells, because it would be unseemingly for you to have the scent of Oil or Cow Dung as evidence of the company you keep.