Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[Tyrannical]

I have a problem with industries where too many of their employees collect benefits. I don't like the idea of tax dollars directly subsidizing an employers compensation package. I know the Left likes to ignore it, but rich evil "republican" companies long ago changed to backing the democrats because low wages + welfare is cheaper for them in the long run.

[MrJonno]

Well I guess I don't move in circles where I socialise with people who run businesses

That's a common fault of the idle proletarian dependent-class leeches. They see every business as an evil corporation out to rape the planet and workers. It's their a priori position: Capitalism MUST be evil because if it isn't, Marxism and socialism immediately crumble into ash and vanish. It's an iteration of the fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief. "If I accept, even in the slightest way, that capitalism is not inherently evil, corrupt, rapacious and harmful, then a very bad thing will happen; my golden calf idol will turn to lead before my eyes and my Socialist heroes will reveal their feet of clay."

But not one swinging dick among the Marxists and Socialists have the balls or the intellect to come up with rational and logical discourse supporting their dogma and ideals. They pronounce it every bit as mindlessly and religiously as the very epitome of evangelical Christians or radical Muslims declare their particular stupid ideas to be the "truth," and they brook no objection either.

Which makes Socialists and Marxists fervent and mindless religionists of the first water.

The reality is politics is war by more civil means, if you take religion out of the equation the only thing people really vote on is economic class. Luckily society is a pyramid and those below always outnumber those above. I judge any society on how the bottom 10% live, I couldnt give a damn about the top 10%

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think you do judge it that way, Mr. Jonno. If you did, you'd have a much higher opinion of the United States than you do.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/21111111111

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... y-chart-17

Despite how horrid folks say it is here, we lag behind only a few countries, even relative to the bottom 10% -- the only ones the OECD says we're behind relative to the bottom 10% are Canada, Australia, Sweden.

[MrJonno]

I don't think you do judge it that way, Mr. Jonno. If you did, you'd have a much higher opinion of the United States than you do.

I've never given any opinion on the United States, how the hell do you judge 300 million people. Now if you want me to judge laws or policies its a different matter.

My current feelings regarding Syria , is British government trying to do the right thing, British parliament tossers, American executive trying to do the right thing and when congress decides I will let you know

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think you do judge it that way, Mr. Jonno. If you did, you'd have a much higher opinion of the United States than you do.

I've never given any opinion on the United States, how the hell do you judge 300 million people. Now if you want me to judge laws or policies its a different matter.

How can you judge laws and policies if you do not do so by their real world effects? If the US is among the best in terms of providing a good life for the bottom 10%, then aren't its policies working? Or, do you judge the policies only on a theoretical level?

I have been in plenty of conversations with you to know your essential view of the US.

My current feelings regarding Syria , is British government trying to do the right thing, British parliament tossers, American executive trying to do the right thing and when congress decides I will let you know

LOL -- really? Why do you think this time around the governments are trying to do the right thing? What is the right thing?

[MrJonno]

I have a problem with industries where too many of their employees collect benefits. I don't like the idea of tax dollars directly subsidizing an employers compensation package. I know the Left likes to ignore it, but rich evil "republican" companies long ago changed to backing the democrats because low wages + welfare is cheaper for them in the long run.

Hate to agree with Tyrannical, but the minimum wage long ago ceased to be a left/right pro/anti business thing in most countries. If you accept the low paid have somehow got to eat it really comes down to business paying their wages or the tax payer subsidising them. While many people don't like giving the unemployed money , even less giving working people money while businesses make profits out of the tax payer

[MrJonno]

LOL -- really? Why do you think this time around the governments are trying to do the right thing? What is the right thing?

Morality is always relative, society determines what is right or wrong but until you have an election you don't know it thinks. So I guess I get to determine what is right or wrong until that point

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL -- really? Why do you think this time around the governments are trying to do the right thing? What is the right thing?

Morality is always relative, society determines what is right or wrong but until you have an election you don't know it thinks. So I guess I get to determine what is right or wrong until that point

Yes, and even after that point; but, my question was "why" do you think that?

If you "just do" then fine, you have an arbitrary opinion based on nothing or based on raw emotion, or whatever -- at least without any reason behind it. The why bit seeks to elicit reasons.

Society, further, does not determine what is right or wrong. Individuals do. A vote of the public determines what a majority thinks the right thing to do is, and the system we've set up binds the whole to the majority vote. But, that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong" in any binding or absolute sense. They're just some people's opinions as to what is right or wrong.

[MrJonno]

There is no right or wring in an absolute sense, when public opinion changes right and wrong changes.

When its comes to a war between two or more factions which is what Syria is there is no such thing as neutrality. If you do nothing with side with whoever is the strongest ie Assad. Maybe if those fighting him win they could be just as bad who knows, but at the moment they aren't gassing their own people.

A few 10's of millions of £/$ worth of Western weapons with minimal risk to western nations citizens and the conflict will certainly end like it did in Libya (which as far as I am concerned was a great success).

[Seth]

The reality is politics is war by more civil means, if you take religion out of the equation the only thing people really vote on is economic class. Luckily society is a pyramid and those below always outnumber those above. I judge any society on how the bottom 10% live, I couldnt give a damn about the top 10%

Thing is, there's ALWAYS a bottom and top 10%, even when everyone is starving to death. At times like that, most people want to be in the top 10%.

[MrJonno]

At times like that, most people want to be in the top 10%.

With most sane people next expecting to, I live my life and vote on the basis I will never be rich which statistically is very rational

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no right or wring in an absolute sense, when public opinion changes right and wrong changes.

There is no public opinion. There is a collection of individual opinions, and a majority/minority. That's all.

When its comes to a war between two or more factions which is what Syria is there is no such thing as neutrality. If you do nothing with side with whoever is the strongest ie Assad. Maybe if those fighting him win they could be just as bad who knows, but at the moment they aren't gassing their own people.

Same rationale could have been applied to the Iraq situation, with Hussein just being better at murdering his people and squelching dissent.

A few 10's of millions of £/$ worth of Western weapons with minimal risk to western nations citizens and the conflict will certainly end like it did in Libya (which as far as I am concerned was a great success).

LOL - Libya was a great success, but Iraq is a failure. Wow. Dude, Libya was ravaged. The NATO forces bombed the fuck out of it and left it for dead. It's in shambles. Tens of thousands were killed. Vital social services were lost. Imperial control replaced Jamahiriya governance.

It's only a great success in the colonial sense, where we've gotten our way, blown a bunch of stuff up, and now can see fit to ignore the plight of the people there. It is violent, chaotic, dysfunctional, and what's worse, the media doesn't report it much because it doesn't follow the narrative that this was the smart way to knock out the bad guys and everything is wine and roses now. http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb4123/

Libya a success? sure, if by success you mean "we don't have to hear about it anymore."

[klr]

...
LOL - Libya was a great success, but Iraq is a failure. Wow. Dude, Libya was ravaged. The NATO forces bombed the fuck out of it and left it for dead. It's in shambles. Tens of thousands were killed. Vital social services were lost. Imperial control replaced Jamahiriya governance.

I'm sorry, but this is just so far from the truth I can't credit it. First and foremost, Libya was mostly ravaged by the fighting amongst Libyans. The NATO forces did not "bomb the fuck out of it". No bombing campaign is going to be a stroll in the park, but please ... give it a rest. Did they destroy every piece of infrastructure in the country? Kill enormous numbers of people? That to me would qualify as "bombing the fuck" out of a country. No they did not do that. Not even close, not even remotely near to the ballpark, let alone in it. In fact, the number of aircraft actually carrying out air-to-ground missions on any given day was quite small.

[Ian]

True.

[laklak]

Well, yeah, but, we made it Safe For Democracy(tm).