The US elections in November, 2010.

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:09 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:If they were predominantly progressive and revolutionary, then yes they were left-wing.
They were progressive, but not left wing.

Being left wing does not require one to be revolutionary.
The Mad Hatter wrote:
Secondly, lol. No, the source has no bearing on the debate.
Of course it does. You've claimed yours is a commonly used definition. If that's the case, surely it can be demonstrated.
The Mad Hatter wrote: You have to actually provide a response to the question now:
In what way is the Chinese Government not right-wing?
I answered that. They are communists. Communists are left wing.
The Mad Hatter wrote: And 'because it's communist' isn't an answer in any sense.
Of course it is.
The Mad Hatter wrote:
Please explain explicit, specific actions it has taken which are characteristic of the left-wing.
Implementing a political philosophy of Maoist Communism in China, limiting private property rights, maintaining control of the means of production in "The People," expropriating property, confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people," maintenance of nationalized industries....



I

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Trolldor » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:37 pm

Implementing a political philosophy of Maoist Communism in China, limiting private property rights, maintaining control of the means of production in "The People," expropriating property, confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people," maintenance of nationalized industries....
Not implemented by the current Chinese Government.

LOL.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Trolldor » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:40 pm

confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people"
Actually, this is, but oddly enough it reeks of something...

Of... of resistance to change and opposition. It seems almost... reactionary.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Trolldor » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:45 pm

Oh yeah, also:

Yes, being left-wing does require being revolutionary.
Just as being reactionary is the key component of being right-wing.

Secondly you said "they were progressive and republican", which means you've equated being Republican to being right wing.
I never said they weren't right wing, what I said was that 'being a republican' does not equate to being on the right, and that if they were progressive and revolutionary then yes they were left-wing.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by maiforpeace » Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:27 pm

Republicans:

Canton Area McDonald's Investigated for Voter Intimidation
As OhioDaily was first to report last night, a fast-food franchisee in the 16th Congressional District may have violated both state and federal law. We can now report that it is a McDonald's chain and have obtained a copy of the letter which was attached to paychecks of the restaurant employees.

Parts of the letter read as follows:

If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not."

Those listed as the "right people?"

John Kasich. Rob Portman. Jim Rennaci.

Attorneys from the Canton law firm Schulman Zimmerman & Associates has taken on the case and submitted copies of the handbill to local prosecutors. The firm, through attorney Allen Schulman, issued a statement:

"This handbill endorses candidates who have, in essence, pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce. But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal elections law. It's no surprise to anyone that Ohio is a battleground state in this election, and for a multinational corporation like McDonald's to threaten employees like this is morally and legally wrong. This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision, which has unleashed corporate arrogance and abuse"
The Letter:

Image
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Warren Dew » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:41 am

Considering how unions pressure members into doing "volunteer" work for candidates, it strikes me that making a suggestion but telling people their vote is "completely your personal decision" is pretty mild.

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by eXcommunicate » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:15 pm

The problem you guys are having placing various political ideology stems from your insistence on using the outmoded "spectrum" idea of political thought. It's a problem because it attempts to place all political thought on one axis and squeezes together very different ideologies in order to make things fit.

Try something like the political compass:

Image

Seems to model reality a lot better than a simple 1-dimensional axis. There are many versions of it, but they all do about the same thing:

Image

Image
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Warren Dew » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:56 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:Image
Interpreted correctly, that graph is a useful way of looking at things. For example, a lot of the current disenchantment with Obama can be explained by voters who voted for him because they thought he was a leftist or centrist, and his turning out to be a statist instead.

Unfortunately there are a lot of distortions of that graph out there, such as this:
eXcommunicate wrote:Image
The idea that Stalin, who banned homosexuality and abortion in Russia after they had been legal under Lenin, is anywhere near the socially liberal end of things is ridiculous.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:34 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:Oh yeah, also:

Yes, being left-wing does require being revolutionary.
No it doesn't. One can be on the Left with out going to the extreme of a "revolution."
The Mad Hatter wrote: Just as being reactionary is the key component of being right-wing.
Not necessarily "reactionary."
The Mad Hatter wrote:
Secondly you said "they were progressive and republican", which means you've equated being Republican to being right wing.
No - I equated the Republicans of the early 1900s and the progressive era with not being "Left Wing."
The Mad Hatter wrote: I never said they weren't right wing, what I said was that 'being a republican' does not equate to being on the right,
And, I agreed with that.
The Mad Hatter wrote:
and that if they were progressive and revolutionary then yes they were left-wing.
But they were Progressive, and they were not Left Wing.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:36 pm

maiforpeace wrote:Republicans:

Canton Area McDonald's Investigated for Voter Intimidation
As OhioDaily was first to report last night, a fast-food franchisee in the 16th Congressional District may have violated both state and federal law. We can now report that it is a McDonald's chain and have obtained a copy of the letter which was attached to paychecks of the restaurant employees.

Parts of the letter read as follows:

If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not."

Those listed as the "right people?"

John Kasich. Rob Portman. Jim Rennaci.

Attorneys from the Canton law firm Schulman Zimmerman & Associates has taken on the case and submitted copies of the handbill to local prosecutors. The firm, through attorney Allen Schulman, issued a statement:

"This handbill endorses candidates who have, in essence, pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce. But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal elections law. It's no surprise to anyone that Ohio is a battleground state in this election, and for a multinational corporation like McDonald's to threaten employees like this is morally and legally wrong. This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision, which has unleashed corporate arrogance and abuse"
The Letter:

Image
That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by eXcommunicate » Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:29 pm

What could possibly be wrong with this?
it is thinly veiled political coercion. That's what's wrong with it.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Warren Dew » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:57 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?
Well, it was supposedly distributed with peoples' paychecks. I suspect that was just the easiest way to distribute it - having worked in fast food places, it's not like you have a desk and an inbox to get your interoffice mail - but people who want to see a conspiracy may think there's a hidden message there. If management had been smarter, they would have distributed it separately just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Still, I give them credit for saying in the letter that it's just their opinion, and emphasizing that recipients might not vote in the way that's best for the company.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:10 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
What could possibly be wrong with this?
it is thinly veiled political coercion. That's what's wrong with it.
LOL - compared to what unions do in expressing their opinions to their membership, it's a big nothing.

One, McDonalds doesn't have access to its employees' voting records, so regardless of who the employee votes for, McDonalds doesn't know, so they can't "coerce" anything.

And, if we are such a sad and puerile people that managements expression of opinion as to what candidates it feels are best for its business, while in the same sized font stating "of course your decision of who to vote for is yours, and depends on a variety of factors," is considered "coercion" ...well, then I don't know what to say...

When I saw the news reports about this the other day, i expected some sort of arm twisting meeting where McDonald's made representations to its employees that if certain people didn't get elected, that McDonald's would be cutting jobs or something like that.....when I read the actual memo that Mai posted, I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard, with a little "out the nose", from a spontaneous belly-laugh... McDonald's note is extraordinarily tame, and is a straightforward, non-threatening expression of opinion. If that letter is called "coercion" then there isn't a damn thing company management could say under any circumstances that isn't coercion.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:15 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?
Well, it was supposedly distributed with peoples' paychecks. I suspect that was just the easiest way to distribute it - having worked in fast food places, it's not like you have a desk and an inbox to get your interoffice mail - but people who want to see a conspiracy may think there's a hidden message there. If management had been smarter, they would have distributed it separately just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Still, I give them credit for saying in the letter that it's just their opinion, and emphasizing that recipients might not vote in the way that's best for the company.
As you said, it makes sense to distribute it with paychecks (although I bet most McDonald's employees have direct deposit). Putting it in the paycheck envelope is an efficient way of distribution, guaranteeing everyone gets one without a second round of envelope stuffing. It's a cost savings.

I think that the folks who think this is some horrible thing are those that think management and business have no right to participate in the political process. I mean - this is an expression of political speech by a group of people. Just because a corporation is for profit, like McDonalds, as opposed to not for profit, like maybe PETA or the Discovery Institute, doesn't mean that those who run it have less of a right to participate in the political process or make their opinions know.

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: The US elections in November, 2010.

Post by eXcommunicate » Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:41 pm

I think that the folks who think this is some horrible thing are those that think management and business have no right to participate in the political process.
Nonsense. They have every right to free speech and participation in the political process. They have no right, however, to tell their employees how to vote under a thinly veiled threat of termination.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: L'Emmerdeur and 28 guests