Oceania What is the deal with anti-capitalists?

Social inequality will never be "solved," because America has a vested interest in maintaining it.

Why?


Because they wouldn't have anyone to go on Jerry Springer.


What do you expect from a world where the top two rating tv shows are Baywatch and Jerry Springer? And I'm talking international here, not just America.

CNN? HA HA

Four Corners? Pffffft.


The world doesn't care.
It's a place full of horrible, selfish, voyeuristic, apathetic, mindless, twisted, ignorant gits.


No amount of protesting will get rid of Baywatch of Jerry.

 

People should be responsible enough to watch news programs and read papers and know that what they are seeing is slightly distorted and things omitted.

The fact is people aren't responsible.
If they were the Liberal party wouldn't have been voted back into office on the basis of a complete lie.

They simply don't care, and those that do care are shunned as morons or idealistic fools.

The general feeling around is "Bugger you , Jack. I'm alright." Some of us maybe too apathetic to be bothered to resist the status quo - and I'm just as guilty as everyone else here. But I would support anyone who does want something done - whether it be against soulless corporations like McDonalds or Nike, or against the draconian immigration laws we're cursed with.

I don't even have to support protesters or their methods, but I support their right to protest. Or did China take over Australia last night and I missed it?

Are all protesters idiots who throw marbles under police horses feet? No. They are an exceptionally small minority and generally shunned by legitimate protesters. Are they all kids who don't really know what they're protesting against and are just trying to get time off school? Of course not. Just as how the frequent claims that police are thugs are grossly distorted.

Seems everyone's forgotten why we're on this forum in the first place - Star Wars. And in Star Wars the Rebels were the good guys...

 

So...MacDonalds and Nike are 'Souless' are they? Oh...Screw the fact they have provided countless jobs to people all around the world, even in Australia for God's sake.

People do have a right to protest. In fact, the US Consitution guarentees the right for people to 'peaceably assemble' (Ammendment I) but smashing windows and stuff does not sound sliek that if you ask me.

Seems everyone's forgotten why we're on this forum in the first place - Star Wars. And in Star Wars the Rebels were the good guys...

You alluding to Star Wars in this shows just how deluded you and your pathetic views are.

 

Oh...Screw the fact they have provided countless jobs to people all around the world, even in Australia for God's sake.

You think these corporations care in the slightest about people? Is that why companies like Nike still operate sweatshops in South East Asia? You or I wouldn't want to work in those sorts of conditions - but it's okay for somone else. All these corporations care about is the almighty dollar.

And you call me deluded and pathetic?

FLAME ON!

People do have a right to protest. In fact, the US Consitution guarentees the right for people to 'peaceably assemble'

This is relevant how? Is Australia the 53rd state?

If you can't debate without getting personal, then you're simply not worth the effort.

 

What I don't understand about the Nike debate is this. Why should Nike be held accountable for a foriegn countries worker's rights and entitlements? Surely the country in question has the responsibility to those workers to institute fair laws governing their work practices.

If Nike were to take the high moral ground and pull out of operations in whatever country it is, then they will have to set up the jobs elsewhere that is more agreeable to the debate. So that could be Australia for example. Of course that would push up the prices for workers which would in turn push up the prices for shoes (cause Nike is going to make it's money anyway).

If that happens, thousands of people will have no work at all in those countries. Other shoe companies would move in on Nike because their prices would be astronomical costing the jobs of all those Australians employed. And that's only if Nike didn't fall over entirely.

There's no easy solution, but one thing that protesters could do is turn their intentions on law makers of some countries and try to really get something done about cause it's obvious they're not doing anything at the moment.

 

Why should Nike be held accountable for a foriegn countries worker's rights and entitlements? Surely the country in question has the responsibility to those workers to institute fair laws governing their work practices.

You're absolutely correct. The countries do have a responsibility to their citizens. However companies like Nike and it's not just Nike) are just as guilty of exploitation as said governments.

Again, it's dollars before people.

Just because that's how commerce works doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it.

 

^ No, you dant have to like Capitalism. But it sure helps to accept it, because that's the way the world is run these days, and will probably progressively become so.

 

Not necessarilly Marvin, there's a quiet revolution occuring, each man has the power to change the world

Oh and I have deliberately, hereto , refrained from expressing my political sentiments, as I don't want to lose friends /make enemies over political disagreements , but let's just say I'm not a proponent of lazzies faire capitalism , of course not, I'm a Griffith student

 

You,ve been indoctrinated with Liberal party sentiments hav'nt ya Marvin <that's the only way Jonnny gets people to vote for him lol >

You've been possessed by old Johnny himself

 

Howard is my master, and I am his apprentice MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Seriously though, 'laissez faire' economics IS best. And it's not my opinon, it's fact!

Yes people can change the status quo. Feral animals can not.

 

So, you are all arguing over peace and stability.

It appears neither system seems to work.

 

The fact is people aren't responsible.
If they were the Liberal party wouldn't have been voted back into office on the basis of a complete lie.

Nope. Wrong.
If you were actually following the 'children-over-board inquiry' you'd know that refugees actually were throwing kids overboard. They've heard countless testimonies which reveal that. One piece of footage that I specifically remember showed a father holding his baby over the side of a boat and threatening to drop her/him. I doubt if you (or any of you) have seen the footage; it was screened on a late night bulletin and was never mentioned again. Notice that the whole inquiry has disppeared as well.... funny that. The media can't criticise the government for something they were right about.

The infamous children-overboard footage that was shown before the election may not have been what it was said to be, but the fact remains that refugees were/are throwing their kids overboard.

 

The fact is people aren't responsible.
If they were the Liberal party wouldn't have been voted back into office on the basis of a complete lie.

I hope you're not suggesting that all people who voted Liberal are not responsible.

I voted Liberal, but it was certainly not because of their boat people policy. It was more to do with myself having next-to-no faith with any of the other parties or candidates (least of all the National Party - John Anderson knows where to shove his head).

Labor went into the election with a very similar viewpoint at first - didn't really help them much.

 

One piece of footage that I specifically remember showed a father holding his baby over the side of a boat and threatening to drop her/him.

I think I remember this footage, though I don't remember anyone being held over the side, and I remember the other people on board trying to stop him. Ultimately though is there any actual proof anyone was thrown overboard? Or just hearsay? Testimony from the people who were at the incident in question seem to indicate there isn't.

I hope you're not suggesting that all people who voted Liberal are not responsible.

I'd like to! But that would be incorrect. The Coalition can thank refugees and the war in Afghanistan for the win. They can also thank the Labour Party for being so insipid.

 

John Howard: Fear. Fear is my ally. Fear attracts the fearful, the strong, the weak, the corrupt.

 

The Labor party ran with the Fear factor as well.

It's over, they lied. Nothing knew.

 

You've obviously seen different footage, Scott. That doesn't sound like the one I saw at all

 

The infamous children-overboard footage that was shown before the election may not have been what it was said to be, but the fact remains that refugees were/are throwing their kids overboard.

this one believes that the toothfairy exists too....

 

John Howard lied to get re-elected?

I'm shocked and dismayed!!


Johnny was such a nice, honest fellow ... he would never, ever lie about anything!

 

Politicians lie to get elected? Boy, is THAT a surprise!

 

I just love Natasha

 

I mdon't think that ANY of us will live to see the day when a Democrat is PM. Sorry JP

Look at my sig. That's how politicians get elected

 

John Howard lied to get re-elected?

That's John 'Never Ever' Howard to you.

If only I could quote the lyrics from a song about John Howard, but even hinting at what the title is would probably get me banned.

 

I'd like to! But that would be incorrect.

That's good.

 

I studied 'Third World' politics for a little while and I have to say that the protestors should get their facts straight.

It is unfortunate/horrible etc that people in developing nations get used. What would be worse however, is if they weren't. Without the jobs these coorporations provide many of these workers would have to resort to prostitution or bonded work (more or less be sold into slavery), because they have their whole families to support. This is what has happened as a result of colonialism and overpopulation. There are too many people and far too little resources. And the Governments of these countries support this because it adds skills to their workforce and helps their economies.

If it was a perfect world this sort of thing wouldn't happen. But given the choice between slavery/prostitution and a job in a factory type setting, which would you choose?

I have no problems with capitalism the world over, in the long run it will help more than it will harm. However, there is a difference between capitalism and making money at all costs (ie. breaking the law or common human decency).

A good example of this, a certain confectionary company told women in Africa that their breast milk was harming their babies (when of course, we know that breast milk is the best thing). As a result, the woman bought their milk formula and mixed it with water, unclean water that harmed their babies far more than their own milk would have.

In protest, I out right refuse to buy products made by this company and in surveys I told them my honest opinion.

Attacking police officers would do nothing, there is no point.

Please excuse any incoherance, I have a cold.