|
|
 |
| [Sep 06, 2001, 11:38 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up
is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault)
with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related
break up of Microsoft ordered last year ( story) that was
subsequently reversed by an appeals court ( story) which vacated
the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the
remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush
administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against
Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have
the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling
issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 167. |
Re: same ol' story |
Sep 14, 2001, 22:25 |
anon@158.252 |
|
|
"You put socialism and truth in quotations. Why is that?"
To indicate irony. You throw those words around as if you were in firm possession of both. I put quotes around them because I do not accept your definitions of either.
"And, it is in fact the same, only the wording is changed. I don’t dictate the truth."
It isn't clear to me what you mean here, except that you seem to be repeating your claim that giving money to poor people on drugs is the same thing as raising taxes to help the poor, ergo every time you give money to the poor, you give money to people on drugs, ergo poor people who receive money (welfare) - are on drugs.
We can go around and around on this, but when you repeatedly prove my accusations, I see no reason for me to repeat them.
As for your statement that you "don't dictate the truth"--you've lost me completely here. Are you saying the truth is the truth, and you simply happen to be in possession of it? (If that is true, I guess I'll just have to take you on your word, that your "truth" is "the" truth.)
"It is only distributed by a welfare program when the government is in charge of it."
Yes? And your point is ... ? When we talk about raising taxes, I ASSUME that implies government is involved. Or are we talking about feudal landowners of the past? You've lost me completely here.
"Self destructive behavior plays a major role, but so do other causes; like being widowed or orphaned. I’ve mentioned this before."
I am glad you have some sympathy for the above groups. But I was not talking about what PUT them on welfare, I was talking about why they can't GET OFF it on their own. Many of the people who've been booted out of the system by Bill Clinton (don't tell me--he's a "socialist," right?) end up stuck in minimum wage jobs that actually pay less than the state used to. Your argument is that anyone who wants to, can work their way out of poverty without help from the state. If they don't, you claim it is their own fault. If someone will not improve their own lot by choice, there is therefore no reason to feel sorry for them, as they choose to live that way.
Let me quote you again:
"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."
Correct. Would you work for money when you were given it based on your 'need'?
Were people actually able to earn more at a minimum wage job--the kind of job they would be able to get--than they would on welfare, yes I think they would work for money. But that also assumes those same shitty Mc-jobs would provide some sort of childcare for the many working parents out there--which of course they don't. When people leave welfare for the workplace, that means, particularly in the case of working mothers, that they can no longer stay home to care for their children. Someone has to. Yet they often can't afford to pay for daycare on the wages that are available to them. The government should help them by providing affordable daycare, but then of course that would be "statist," wouldn't it?
This situation is much more complex than your black and white thinking will allow you to perceive.
ME: If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?
YOU: It is. But the reason they are in poverty to start with may not be. You twist my words again.
How am I twisting your words? Forget it. Let's just say I twisted your words here. FINE. I know accuse you of blaming people for their CONTINUING state of poverty. Does that suit you better?
"We should care about them, most certainly. But not by giving them handouts. Offering jobs or expecting work in return does far more than giving handouts. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."
I agree. But in exactly what way should he be taught? You can't be suggesting that the government should subsidize his schooling, or a job-training program, to help him escape poverty, are you? Wouldn't that, in your world, be "statist?"
"I am a conservative? not quite."
Fine. We'll just chalk it up to coincidence that all of your arguments fall into the conservative/libertarian section of the political realm.
"Slave trade? How is going to work and making money a slave trade?"
I'll tell you exactly how. When the minimum wage is set at such a level that many of the working poor can not afford to pay for food, rent, utilities, health insurance, day care, etc etc, AND save enough money to escape from poverty, that's how. If those jobs were unionized, they might be able to collectively bargain for better wages or benefits, but then that would be ... well, we know what you think that would be, right?
The point is, that even though they are working, they are not "free" to improve their lot, because they are trapped in their situation through no fault of their own. Some manage to escape, yes, but the vast majority do not. They will remain poor until they die. You say it is their own fault. I say it is not.
"Do you think that we should put everyone who works nine to five on welfare? Does working 9 to 5 make you a poor slave? I don’t think so. Your argument is ludicrous."
Now who's putting words in someone's mouth? Of course there are nine-to-five jobs that pay a decent salary. It's not the hours worked. It is the rate at which they are compensated.
"In the future, i will not respond to any of your posts unless you at least try to be civil and present valid points."
They are valid. You choose not to see them as such. However, I will plead guilty to the charge of failing, from time to time, to be civil. These arguments are not abstract to me, they involve real people and real suffering, often related to the greed of others. But nonetheless, you are right, it is best to present ones arguments in a civil tone, no matter how outrageous you think those of the other side are.
ANON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
