Oh, I LOVE to argue politics and social issues!!! Here we go, some comments..
Wal-Mart is capable of offering lower prices because they buy in large bulks. It is not to drive locally owned stores out of business, just a fact of life. They have such a large inventory and such buying power they can negotiate favorable terms for themselves. Most locally owned stores form "cooperatives" to gain more advantage and get a better price. Unions also work on the same principle. Most companies have policies against co-workers dating. It prevents trouble when people break up and disrupt work when they aren't dealing well together.
Wal-Mart's strategy is to move into a town and operate at a loss, underselling the locally owned stores until they go out of business. Then they raise their prices. They also have ridiculous policies restricting employee's dating each other and paying low wages.
Unless a company owns the facility, they can't control who makes the product(there has even been a movement in the US to allow younger kids to work more). Kids aren't regarded the same way in most countries the way they are here in the US. It's hard to compare apples to oranges. As for the beef, most of McDonalds beef does come from the US, though a small portion does come from outside sources (mostly for the non-US chains). And for the packaging, they have made great strides to reduce their packaging over the years (anyone remember the styrofoam). They simply choose to limit their reductions to an amount which won't affect the quality of your food. Anyone else have a cup from Burger King which leaked through because of the cheap paper they use? Or how about the grease which comes through the papers of Hardees or Burger King??
Some McDonald's toys are made by children in illegal sweatshops. McDonald's grows it's beef by clearcutting rainforests and has made no effort to reduce their packaging which not only kills trees but ends up in landfills.
I would have to say this is a pretty big stretch (and yes I did read the article you posted the link to). A lot of companies (Nike, Pepsi, Ford, etc) produce a majority of the products they make outside the US because the Unions in this country have pushed the salaries and benefits to outrageous levels and created safety barriers around people so it makes it nearly impossible to let the most incompetent people go. They need to be efficient in todays marketplace.
Kentucky Fried Chicken is owned by PepsiCo who has been collaborating with military forces in some countries for years that supress and kill the local populations.
See my response about Wal-Mart. They same theory applies here...
They have put numerous locally owned stores out of business and contributed to the plasticization of the world.
So having smart business prices and being able to offer lower prices since they don't have to pay rent, sales tax, etc is being corrupt? I don't understand this comment.
Amazon.com - putting real bookstores out of business by the hundreds! Getting software patents on things that are not only obvious but not that hard to do.
OK, enough comments about that one post. Here are some more from the other posts:
What these numbers don't show is how they have changed since he took office. The numbers are all moving in the right direction. These numbers also include a large number of illegal immigrants, so the numbers will drop accordingly and the poverty statistics will go up.
I personally cannot understand why anybody would want to vote for Bush considering his record in Texas.
Please define what an institution is. How many people would determine an institution?
Institutions are by their very nature corrupt.
I think this is a bit strong. All people have the capacity for good and evil. It depends on which way people react to it which defines if they are corrupt or not. Not all people are corrupt. Most are honorable people and do what's right, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while.
You know what, all people are corrupt. We're not by nature good. Throw a bunch of corrupt people toghether to forum a corpration, and what do you have? A corporation of corrupt people. There was only ever one person who wasn't corrupt, and the rest of us killed him.
I wouldn't necessarily say he's tech savvy. He has had good advisors and he's always been a good Teflon politician and been able to reinvent himself accordingly. Remember during the early to mid-90's when the environment was such a big issue, there was Al with a book on the subject. Now he's taking credit for the expansion of the internet, a stretch at best. His story changes from day to day and has an incredible knack for making figures up and trying to pass them off as fact.
for me it has to be Gore. he is smart, experienced, has tech savy
This may have been one of George W's infamous gaffs, but I believe this point may be more one of "Speech is free, but be prepared to face the consequences of the speech" I see this as no different than allowing a controversial group of people say their peace, but they had better be prepared to take the consequences of any threats or hate-filled speech which they may make.
"Free speech ought to be limited"
I think this is only part of the problem. Another big problem is that the teachers have no power in their own classrooms and have no respect. When I was in school (I graduated from HS 11 years ago, not THAT long ago), if I got in trouble in school, I was in worse trouble in school. For the most part, if the teacher said I was wrong, my parents said I was wrong. I don't see very much of that now a day. Most teachers are afraid to stand up and take control of their class for fear of being sued. The administration would rather pass a kid on than hurt their self-esteem if they can't do the work (my wife got this lecture when she applied for a job in one of the local school district -- needless to say, she's glad she didn't get offered the job)
Get rid of the ridiculous teacher's unions and let the schools hire whomever they want...that will boost test scores: guarenteed.
Most of the times, large corporations are more likely to make large donations to charitable organizations or for sponsor events than local mom and pop groups. I am in a barbershop chorus, and when we put our program to help us finance our annual show, a large majority of our larger advertisers are the larger corps. in the area. Corporations actually infuse more money into the local economies than the mom and pops.
However, their profits stay more in the local community instead of going off to some billionaire miles away.
Larger corporations usually are capable of higher pay and benefits for the same reason they can charge lower amounts for their prices. They may be more impersonal in dealing with their employees, but they still can pay more.
Maybe they actually took away jobs and gave lower pay.
He and Gore have also been invited to go onto WWF Smackdown and have a debate. Do you really think that's an appropriate place for a "serious" politician to go? They all have so many burdens placed on their time, they have to make choices along the way.
...it's in his own interest to go on the show
Gore is also Vice President of the country. He better be better versed in the matters of the country. THAT'S HIS JOB!!! Bush isn't as well versed since his job is to be involved in the affairs of the state of Texas. He will have plenty of time to be indoctrinated to foreign policy if he gets elected. He will also be careful in who he picks for his advisors and cabinet members. A good executive has great people working for him.
Gore is intelligent, and can pronounce most of the words he says. He knows what is going on in the world, is experienced and his policies (international at least) are of a much higher standard than W's.
When did he say this??
He wouldn't think for himself. He's already said the NRA would have offices in the white house.
To actually reply to this topic, let me state that I plan to vote for Bush.
Gore is the typical teflon politician. He does fundraising from the Vice Presidential office, has political fundraisers where foreign investors make contributions. What does he then say? That election fundraising reform will be a top issue. He tells the entertainment industry that he will enact tough legislation to reduce the amount of violent advertising aimed at kids, then a week later at a political fundraiser in Hollywood tells the crowd that he won't regulate them. He tells Senior citizens that he will enact legislation to make perscriptions more affordable. His plan gives you ONE chance ever to sign up (age 63.5), has a monthly premium of $23 and then only pays half up to $1000 dollars a year. Does that really sound affordable. His spending and budget plan is banking on the fact that the economy will continue at the growth it has and then STILL overspend by over 1/2 billion dollars. He has stated that George W's tax cut will only be for the rich, when the tax cut is the same amount for EVERYONE and the tax cut will increase the poors income level by the greatest percentage. Gore talks about going back to "Reagonomics," but conveniently forgets that the national debt was around 3.5 trillion dollars when Bush left office and now stands at over 6 trillion dollars.
Bush's educational plan requires schools to prove they're producing before they get money. In other words, if they want to get paid, teach the kids. NOVEL CONCEPT!!:D His spending plan is based on much more conservative estimates than even what the General Accounting Office is predicting, still reduces the national debt within a reasonable amount of time, and has over 1/2 billion dollars left over!!!
Whew!! I'm tired from typing all this. Putting on my flame suit and waiting for replies....