| Castro, was he right? For years I have been reading DSLr forums. It seems these corporations get worse every month in the things they do to squeeze every dollar from the people. I can definitely see why companies need to be nationalized if they get to big. A "no class action" clause should not be allowed EVER. Why do we need laws against exploitation by the companies? Also, the lawyers should not be allowed to profit so much for pushing class action lawsuits. Any money won should go back to customers and maybe the school systems. |
|
| said by ossito16:For years I have been reading DSLr forums. It seems these corporations get worse every month in the things they do to squeeze every dollar from the people. I can definitely see why companies need to be nationalized if they get to big. A "no class action" clause should not be allowed EVER. Why do we need laws against exploitation by the companies? Also, the lawyers should not be allowed to profit so much for pushing class action lawsuits. Any money won should go back to customers and maybe the school systems. Move to North Korea, every corporation there is nationalized.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to ossito16
Wow. Just wow. Nationalize all corporations? That has got to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Look at such places where that has happened or is happening right now. Former Soviet Union, N. Korea, Cuba, and thats just a start. Their economies were/are terrible and the people are crushed at each step. Just a horrible idea. |
|
| said by ender7074:Wow. Just wow. Nationalize all corporations? That has got to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Look at such places where that has happened or is happening right now. Former Soviet Union, N. Korea, Cuba, and thats just a start. Their economies were/are terrible and the people are crushed at each step. Just a horrible idea. Yes but it fits the lazy socialist well. See, the lazy socialist generally tends to be a loser in life, especially economically speaking. In America, one can work hard and become well off. In countries like Cuba, though, regardless of how hard you work or how marketable your skills are you are worth as much as everyone else. The lazy socialist would rather bring everyone down to his or her level instead of working hard to gain new skills or polish current skills to make him or her more marketable.
I have yet to meet anyone doing well in life with extreme socialist ideas such as nationalizing corporations. They tend to be unemployed, undereducated, and the type of personality that blames everything negative on everyone else. They hang out at coffee houses on weekday afternoons when they should be working.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson |
|
| It's not socialism, it's called communism. A certain very famous SOCIALIST wrote a book about communism called animal farm.
Socialism is about a society creating a social safety net where people at the bottom have at least basic needs accounted for during the toughest of times. Please don't equate socialism and communism. |
|
|
|
| said by rahvin112:Please don't equate socialism and communism. The only real difference is that communists shoot people that try to leave.
Remember communist Russia called themselves the Soviet Socialist Republic.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to rahvin112
Bah, the term has meant the same thing as Communist as long as it's also had the meaning that you're trying to declare is the sole meaning... The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | reply to footballdude
Yes, France and Communist Russia are so similar ... 
Oh, and the US is a republic - does that make us like the old Soviets? |
|
1 edit | reply to texans20
I guess I came off wrong, I was not a nationalized all Corp., just the ones that repeatedly try to circumvent (illegally or on the line legal) the rules and laws that are in place to protect the people using the services of these companies. Why use fine print, why use opt-out instead of opt-in choices, why do we need to have labor laws for "children". I'm not saying we need to nationalize Starbucks. Only the ones who blatantly don't give a f#%! about the people and believe they do not have to answer to anyone as long as they can keep lobbying (indirect kickbacks,etc) I would even go for temporary nationalization of a company and then sell it to someone else who has some sense. |
|
| reply to SLD
said by SLD:Oh, and the US is a republic - does that make us like the old Soviets? If the socialists had their way, yes.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Time for you to travel a bit beyond Missouri. |
|
| reply to ender7074
not saying nationalized all companies, just the ones who continue to act ad though we the people owe them something. Maybe even give state attorneys more power (zero interference from federal branches) and let them loose on these companies. All winnings go to the states. Just like the tobacco industry. |
|
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
2 edits | reply to SLD
Guys, get real. IMHO, there isn't a real difference... the commies/socies/whatever you want to label them as are at least open about it. Our gov't isn't really any better, when we spend half our resources bombing other countries and trumpeting our fake 'democracy', while spending the other half on listening into our own citizens and occasionally strip-searching them.
And yes, the 'democracy' we trumpet IS fake.. we're a republic, and anyone that attempts to gloss that over with the shiny coating of democracy is an idiot who needs to take high school history over again.
And for crissake, keep an open mind to other ideas. Funny how we expect N. Korea/China/Former commies to accept our "democratic"/liberal ways, when we ourselves edge away from their ideals as if it was a bad disease.
Now, back on topic: I think it's at least a step in the right direction, although hardly a setback for the 'evil-uns' |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | reply to EPS
said by EPS:Bah, the term has meant the same thing as Communist as long as it's also had the meaning that you're trying to declare is the sole meaning... The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. Communism is a form of socialism, but that doesn't mean that all socialists are communists. The two terms aren't always directly interchangeable, much to the chagrin of pundits. |
|
