Home » CHIT-CHAT » Off Topic Discussions » Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #304508]
|
Tue, 08 May 2012 21:20
|
|
veedotja2 |
|
Messages:86
Registered:April 2012 Location: New York |
|
|
I will contribute a serious post (!) of high academic caliber.
BearpitHow much interest upon interest and accumulating more interest can the US economy continue with ?
How can it ever pay back all that debt with the opportunity for employment being continually eroded ..... start more wars then steal the natural resources of countries "liberated" from the evils of nasty dictators Iraq has oil, lots of it so does Iran ..... next target ??? maybe.
I suppose that all the oil that the US has "liberated" (now liberated by Barack Obama for the 3+ years of his presidency) will hopefully find it's way to the gas pump to reduce these record high gasoline prices in the US. They are much higher than the Bush-era prices ever were.
Actually the US doesn't take any specific material goods, but gets into trouble internationally trying to "build up" governments which is a terrible idea.
Oh, yeah, Saddam Hussein *was* a nasty dictator. No smiley face. Do you doubt it? He massacred almost A MILLION PEOPLE and committed one of the worst genocides ever using nerve gas and machineguns. Ethnic minorities, other arabs, Kuwaitis, rape "virtue" squads to rape your wife in front of you. Waterboarding? No. Hussein engaged in *real, state-sanctioned torture.* You can dispute the US involvement in the middle east but Saddam was a nasty fucker. And we didn't steal a gallon of oil because it belongs to the people of Iraq, not the US.
On Chavez: it isn't Murdoch's press. Jeez. He only owns Fox and a couple of papers, some internatonal. He is only one well-known piece of the media. The Chavez criticism comes from places as diverse as The New York Times, MSNBC and the John Stewart Show. If Venezuela wasn't propped up by massive oil reserves you wouldn't even know the name Chavez. Can you name another South American "elected" official? 13 years Chavez, time to step down. It's easy to sign labor laws, seize property, and fix prices when the country will always have the liquid money flowing. US and the Eurozone aren't so lucky.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #304595]
|
Sat, 12 May 2012 03:48
|
|
|
To me, capitalist economics is unsustainable and a destroyer of advancement. They only benefit the bourgeoisie.
I think it is a great thing that poor indigenous workers in South America are granted some kind of rights in relation to being a contingent worker.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #305220]
|
Sun, 27 May 2012 05:24
|
|
veedotja2 |
|
Messages:86
Registered:April 2012 Location: New York |
|
|
taoTo me, capitalist economics is unsustainable and a destroyer of advancement. They only benefit the bourgeoisie.
I think it is a great thing that poor indigenous workers in South America are granted some kind of rights in relation to being a contingent worker.
Yeah, that's called serfdom. Do they get a chance to rise above their station? Never! It's like in Mexico where YOU NEVER GET THE TITLE TO THE LAND you "own." Sure, you are a usufructuary, but never can pass this benefit on to your children. It sounds swell to "grant" rights to the "workers," but like serfdom and communism, it's a lie. At least the US gave, free and clear, land and animals to freed slaves, who now own their land in the US. That's honest. Slavery is fucked up, which is why we abolished it, but we gave real property and the rights to it. Those slaves' grandchildren have houses and land. Those indiginous workers in South America will still be indiginous workers in 100 years given a pittance by the government company that holds title.
With respect to capitalism: I don't think there is any pure capitalism left in the US. Not many places in the world either. The problem in the US is that it is more "Corporatist" than capitalist. There are so many gov't rules and regulations, so many lawsuits, so much bribery, so much competition with nations without any environmental laws or labor laws that capitalism can't act as intended. Our government is so powerful every deep pocket is knocking on the door paying for favors. This is an argument for limited gov't - the less the gov't can do the less advantage you get by bribing it.
Capitalism has given us the artificial heart, the iPhone, Viagra, the car, the internet (as we know it today with Google and Facebook, et al), Jagged Alliance 2, etc. Money is a phenomenal motivator with the correct rule structure. It is important ot have rules such as no monopolies, no price fixing, union laws, etc. The patent process enshrined in the US Constitution allows a small window of time in which to make your money in the "useful arts and sciences." Then we all get the benefit when it expires. There are those that abuse the patent laws but that isn't the point.
There is a place for charity and giving but you can't count on it. I am a fan of open source software and charity giving. Nevertheless, what do you care if someone gets rich if we all get to drive cars and eat ice cream? Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, George Steinbrenner, Mark Zuckerberg didn't steal their wealth. They created industries and paid plenty in taxes along the way that are spent to create a county like the US where the main problem in the poor is obesity, not starvation.
I'd rather be "poor" in a capitalist society than "rich" in a socialist one. No bread and sausage coupons for me in some "workers paradise," thanks.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #305507]
|
Sat, 02 June 2012 09:08
|
|
veedotja2 |
|
Messages:86
Registered:April 2012 Location: New York |
|
|
SmokinGun
....
#1 Largest single user of oil on the planet? U.S. military.
....
#2 Yup Sadam was a bad man...but the U.S govt are the true evil fuckers on the planet. Far worse than sadam ever was...perhaps ye should do a little homework before condemning Sadam and turning a blind eye to the u.s. govt/foreign policy makers?
....
#3 Currently our unregulated run away capitalism isn't working too well for the majority of citizens. We have Corporate capitalism profit..and Socialist loss.
....
1) What? Any sources for this wild-ass claim? What's your point anyway? The US tanks don't pump gas from a spigot in Iraq! Anyway, I know that the Indian and Chinese governments use far more oil and therefore have far more to do with the price of oil on the spot market than US does. There are a lot of huge oil consumers in the world, everything isn't controlled by the US! The US also produces a lot of domestic oil. You clearly don't understand the geopolitics of oil pricing and are beating the old "US-oil-war-bad" drum. I recognize the faults of US foreign policy but we cannot have a discussion if you do not clearly understand the factors involved in the price of crude oil.
2) Perhaps YOU should do a little homework. Comparing the US Gov't to a nerve-gassing mass rapist and genocidal murderer is simply absurd and shows your biases. Please just go to to Wikipedia or any site that talks about mass murderers. Saddam is right up there with Hitler. If you are referring to US history I should inform you that it has been a long time since the US abandoned its slavery past and imperial intentions, we fought internal wars over this. There are also many nations with more recent colonial pasts (I'm looking at France, Japan and England here) that no one wants to criticize. Is it so fashionable to bash the US that facts can't get in the way?
3) I largely agree with you but for one thing: we don't have much Capitalism left in the US. If only we did! Corporate interests rule the day. Socialism has a terrible track record and any student of history is properly frightened of it. Nevertheless, every major institution in the US is either government (Socialist: army, police, public services), heavily unionized (Socialist: automotive, utilities) or financial (Corporatist: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Lehman Brothers). The heart of the US business world is small businesses (Capitalist: contractors, retailers, etc) and this is the primary jobs driver. Unfortunately the small businessman is becoming part of a shrinking middle class. Those industries such as health care and education are so heavily regulated that they cannot operate correctly as Capitalist institutions.
Listen, the US's problems aren't a failure of Capitalism, they are a sign that big business and big government shouldn't mix. A large gov't is a target for corruption.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #305578]
|
Mon, 04 June 2012 01:52
|
|
|
It really was what you said in the beginning:
"...copy pasting whatever drivel I find on the net..."
And not necessarily a debate.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #305630]
|
Tue, 05 June 2012 21:54
|
|
SmokinGun |
|
Messages:69
Registered:June 2007 Location: Land of New Rising Sun |
|
|
VeeDotJA2
1) What? Any sources for this wild-ass claim? What's your point anyway?
Hardly a "wild-ass claim" dipshit that the largest and most widespread military on the planet (count bases and countries) is the single largest oil consumer on the planet. Are you saying the U.S. military has some secret technology that fuels itself without the use of oil? Can you not see that without oil the U.S. military would be rendered immobile and ineffective, especially considering the number of bases and countries it is operating from. Do you think the planes, naval ships and vehicles are running on vegetable oil? It is of vital importance that oil is secured to keep the military machine functioning, and to keep the American economy functioning.
sources-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281892
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/planet-biggest-gas-guzzler.htm
VeeDotJA2
The US also produces a lot of domestic oil. You clearly don't understand the geopolitics of oil pricing and are beating the old "US-oil-war-bad" drum. I recognize the faults of US foreign policy but we cannot have a discussion if you do not clearly understand the factors involved in the price of crude oil.
Much of our foreign policy is motivated by oil, its access, and its profit...please enlighten me how that relates to crude oil pricing? You imply that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil, and that if it did we would have lower gas prices at the pump? Are you that naive? Do you think that oil companies are interested in making less profit because oil is more (or less) readibly available? In fact they have posted record profits
On domestic oil prices in the states-
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30806
On oil profits-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421061/big-oil-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil/?mobile=nc
VeeDotJA2
2) Perhaps YOU should do a little homework. Comparing the US Gov't to a nerve-gassing mass rapist and genocidal murderer is simply absurd and shows your biases. Please just go to to Wikipedia or any site that talks about mass murderers. Saddam is right up there with Hitler. If you are referring to US history I should inform you that it has been a long time since the US abandoned imperial intentions...Is it so fashionable to bash the US that facts can't get in the way?
Well, its possible that you're either completly uninformed...or that you've been well propigandized and your religious faith will not allow you to see facts and reality. If Saddam is "right up there with Hitler" then what does that say about the U.S. govt supporting Adolf Hussein? It is FACTUAL that the U.S. govt supplied Saddam with biological, chemical, and conventional weapons. The U.S. govt also supplied him with Cash, military training and support knowing full well that he had used chemical weapons and that he was a terrible dictator.
The U.S. govt consistently puts in place and supports nasty dictators and when it then becomes convenient...denounces those dictators as evil. All in the name of "freedom and democracy".
Since you're a fan of Ron Paul, perhaps this would be a good place to start, although Paul did not coin the C.I.A. phrase "blowback"- Iraqgate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2m7kRMwC-U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate
Quote:
Returning to Iraq, it surely qualifies as a leading criminal state. Defending the U.S. plan to attack Iraq at a televised public meeting on February 18, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked the ultimate atrocity: Saddam was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who asked about U.S. support for Suharto. Shortly after, Senator Lott condemned Kofi Annan for seeking to cultivate a "human relationship with a mass murderer," and denounced the Administration for trusting a person who would sink so low.
Ringing words. Putting aside their evasion of the question raised, Albright and Cohen only forgot to mention
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #305661]
|
Wed, 06 June 2012 22:34
|
|
veedotja2 |
|
Messages:86
Registered:April 2012 Location: New York |
|
|
SmokinGundipshit
Thank you.
All these sources! Is it because I pointed you to Wikipedia (did you go?) to research Saddam Hussein.
SmokinGunhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281892
I found this:
"If the Defense Department were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines." So this source does not state the US has the largest oil consumption of any organization, country or whatever.
SmokinGunhttp://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194
This source does not support your claim, where did you dig this one up?
SmokinGunhttp://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/planet-biggest-gas-guzzler.htm
I found this:
"According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book, when oil consumption is broken down per capita, the U.S. Department of Defense ranks fourth in the world (behind three actual nations, that is.)" This ultimately misses the point because the DoD isn't the Army, the source is old, and doesn't make your point.
SmokinGunMuch of our foreign policy is motivated by oil, its access, and its profit...please enlighten me how that relates to crude oil pricing? You imply that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil, and that if it did we would have lower gas prices at the pump? Are you that naive? Do you think that oil companies are interested in making less profit because oil is more (or less) readibly available? In fact they have posted record profits.
On domestic oil prices in the states-
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30806
This site makes silly claims. They even have a disclaimer, "The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article." What are the quality of your sources here? The implications of the source are that the US can price fix oil a bit locally which still doesn't bear on global crude prices.
SmokinGunOn oil profits-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02...-oil/?mobile=nc
I read this article a long time ago. We aren't talking about record profits here, or why you have a problem with profit if the money isn't made unethically. When did the conversation shift to profit=evil?
Still misses the point that oil wars aren't about "taking the oil" but ensuring a stable supply. This is not a vindication of the US foreign policy positions. You don't understand the details which is important to have a discussion. Your sources don't back up your statement above anyway. I don't know how you can believe I am "naive." Another dig?
SmokinGunWell, its possible that you're either completly uninformed...or that you've been well propigandized and your religious faith will not allow you to see facts and reality. If Saddam is "right up there with Hitler" then what does that say about the U.S. govt supporting Adolf Hussein? It is FACTUAL that the U.S. govt supplied Saddam with biological, chemical, and conventional weapons. The U.S. govt also supplied him with Cash, military training and support knowing full well that he had used chemical weapons and that he was a terrible dictator.
Well, now my "religious faith" is called into play. You would love If I identified as Christian, what would you say then I wonder. You are wrong though. Nice try to make this a religious discussion. Did you make a mistake there with "Adolf Hussein?" Besides, *I* didn't say Saddam is up there with Hitler, I've got sources too, see:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
http://www.lvrj.com/news/saddam-s-interrogator-has-unique-perspective-of-mass-murderer-106815233.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15285264/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/witnesses-tell-saddam-trial-killings-kurds/
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_uprising.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683290
Wow. That was easy. I love copy and paste. I'm actually making a joke because as an old school debater I've yet to meet anyone besides you who didn't think Saddam was evil. Did I need to even source this. Wow again.
This won't matter to you because you will blame it on the US giving Saddam weapons of mass destruction that nobody could find...
It is important to note that Hitler was elected, was Time Magazine Man of the Year 1938 before his dictatorial ambitions were realized, and that it was the *US and Allies* that took him down. Same for Saddam. Ulitmately to pin the atrocities of Saddam on the US is simply bizarre. His own people, Iraqi Citizens, tried him and put him to death after a trial so you might just be alone here in your notions.
SmokinGunThe U.S. govt consistently puts in place and supports nasty dictators and when it then becomes convenient...denounces those dictators as evil. All in the name of "freedom and democracy".
We agree nation building is a bad idea. Why this shot at the US?
SmokinGunSince you're a fan of Ron Paul, perhaps this would be a good place to start, although Paul did not coin the C.I.A. phrase "blowback"- Iraqgate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2m7kRMwC-U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate
Why are you arguing this with me, I agree with Paul on Iraq and other elements of his foreign policy. Did you really read my posts?
SmokinGunhttp://www.chomsky.info/articles/199804--.htm
On relations with Saddam and Bush 1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31145
On U.S. atrocities in Iraq- U.S.biological warfare vs Iraq-
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Obama and War-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31265
Ouch, your sources aren't in support of a point anymore, you have started to rant with weblinks.
SmokinGun"dumbfuck Americans," "oblivious" to their own countries atrocities and global actions while waving their flag and hypocritically condemning the actions of others.
Now my mini rant:
Thanks again. You make a lot of assumptions. You lump in all US citizens together and throw an insult or two in there. I think I made my points well and you just resorted to the University of Google cut-N-paste technique. Half your posts are from one website with weak credentials (globalresearch.ca) you should expand your universe of information.
I don't know what you think Americans are, but I look in the streets here and I see very few old white guys. I occupy wall streeters, blacks, latinos, Chinese immigrants. I see a lot of internal disagreement on what path we see for the United States in the future. We have a president who never knew his dad and smoked a lot of pot growing up. What do you know about Americans? We all the same to you? Do you know my politics (you imagine you do), my immigrant status, my ethnicity or my color? You know I'm a "dumbfuck," though, right?
It is convenient to forget positive US actions like Somalia and Kuwait where the US intervened to save the lives of thousands of Muslims. Forget World War I and World War II where tens of thousand of Americans gave their lives, even black Americans without equal rights at home, to secure the freedoms of others. Forget the US Civil War and some of the great policies we have adopted such as women's suffrage and elimination of compulsory military service. There are many "enlightened" countries like Saudi Arabia that lacks equal rights for women and France that forces its citizens into the military!
You can turn this discussion into US-bashing and "dumbfuck American" bashing if you want but I'll just check out here. Nice speaking with you anyway.
[Updated on: Wed, 06 June 2012 22:36] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #309930]
|
Sun, 09 September 2012 13:10
|
|
Khor1255 |
|
Messages:1817
Registered:August 2003 Location: Pleasantville, NJ |
|
|
VeeDotJA2SmokinGundipshit
Thank you.
All these sources! Is it because I pointed you to Wikipedia (did you go?) to research Saddam Hussein.
SmokinGunhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281892
I found this:
"If the Defense Department were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines." So this source does not state the US has the largest oil consumption of any organization, country or whatever.
SmokinGunhttp://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194
This source does not support your claim, where did you dig this one up?
SmokinGunhttp://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/planet-biggest-gas-guzzler.htm
I found this:
"According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book, when oil consumption is broken down per capita, the U.S. Department of Defense ranks fourth in the world (behind three actual nations, that is.)" This ultimately misses the point because the DoD isn't the Army, the source is old, and doesn't make your point.
SmokinGunMuch of our foreign policy is motivated by oil, its access, and its profit...please enlighten me how that relates to crude oil pricing? You imply that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil, and that if it did we would have lower gas prices at the pump? Are you that naive? Do you think that oil companies are interested in making less profit because oil is more (or less) readibly available? In fact they have posted record profits.
On domestic oil prices in the states-
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30806
This site makes silly claims. They even have a disclaimer, "The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article." What are the quality of your sources here? The implications of the source are that the US can price fix oil a bit locally which still doesn't bear on global crude prices.
SmokinGunOn oil profits-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02...-oil/?mobile=nc
I read this article a long time ago. We aren't talking about record profits here, or why you have a problem with profit if the money isn't made unethically. When did the conversation shift to profit=evil?
Still misses the point that oil wars aren't about "taking the oil" but ensuring a stable supply. This is not a vindication of the US foreign policy positions. You don't understand the details which is important to have a discussion. Your sources don't back up your statement above anyway. I don't know how you can believe I am "naive." Another dig?
SmokinGunWell, its possible that you're either completly uninformed...or that you've been well propigandized and your religious faith will not allow you to see facts and reality. If Saddam is "right up there with Hitler" then what does that say about the U.S. govt supporting Adolf Hussein? It is FACTUAL that the U.S. govt supplied Saddam with biological, chemical, and conventional weapons. The U.S. govt also supplied him with Cash, military training and support knowing full well that he had used chemical weapons and that he was a terrible dictator.
Well, now my "religious faith" is called into play. You would love If I identified as Christian, what would you say then I wonder. You are wrong though. Nice try to make this a religious discussion. Did you make a mistake there with "Adolf Hussein?" Besides, *I* didn't say Saddam is up there with Hitler, I've got sources too, see:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
http://www.lvrj.com/news/saddam-s-interrogator-has-unique-perspective-of-mass-murderer-106815233.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15285264/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/witnesses-tell-saddam-trial-killings-kurds/
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_uprising.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683290
Wow. That was easy. I love copy and paste. I'm actually making a joke because as an old school debater I've yet to meet anyone besides you who didn't think Saddam was evil. Did I need to even source this. Wow again.
This won't matter to you because you will blame it on the US giving Saddam weapons of mass destruction that nobody could find...
It is important to note that Hitler was elected, was Time Magazine Man of the Year 1938 before his dictatorial ambitions were realized, and that it was the *US and Allies* that took him down. Same for Saddam. Ulitmately to pin the atrocities of Saddam on the US is simply bizarre. His own people, Iraqi Citizens, tried him and put him to death after a trial so you might just be alone here in your notions.
SmokinGunThe U.S. govt consistently puts in place and supports nasty dictators and when it then becomes convenient...denounces those dictators as evil. All in the name of "freedom and democracy".
We agree nation building is a bad idea. Why this shot at the US?
SmokinGunSince you're a fan of Ron Paul, perhaps this would be a good place to start, although Paul did not coin the C.I.A. phrase "blowback"- Iraqgate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2m7kRMwC-U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate
Why are you arguing this with me, I agree with Paul on Iraq and other elements of his foreign policy. Did you really read my posts?
SmokinGunhttp://www.chomsky.info/articles/199804--.htm
On relations with Saddam and Bush 1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31145
On U.S. atrocities in Iraq- U.S.biological warfare vs Iraq-
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Obama and War-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31265
Ouch, your sources aren't in support of a point anymore, you have started to rant with weblinks.
SmokinGun"dumbfuck Americans," "oblivious" to their own countries atrocities and global actions while waving their flag and hypocritically condemning the actions of others.
Now my mini rant:
Thanks again. You make a lot of assumptions. You lump in all US citizens together and throw an insult or two in there. I think I made my points well and you just resorted to the University of Google cut-N-paste technique. Half your posts are from one website with weak credentials (globalresearch.ca) you should expand your universe of information.
I don't know what you think Americans are, but I look in the streets here and I see very few old white guys. I occupy wall streeters, blacks, latinos, Chinese immigrants. I see a lot of internal disagreement on what path we see for the United States in the future. We have a president who never knew his dad and smoked a lot of pot growing up. What do you know about Americans? We all the same to you? Do you know my politics (you imagine you do), my immigrant status, my ethnicity or my color? You know I'm a "dumbfuck," though, right?
It is convenient to forget positive US actions like Somalia and Kuwait where the US intervened to save the lives of thousands of Muslims. Forget World War I and World War II where tens of thousand of Americans gave their lives, even black Americans without equal rights at home, to secure the freedoms of others. Forget the US Civil War and some of the great policies we have adopted such as women's suffrage and elimination of compulsory military service. There are many "enlightened" countries like Saudi Arabia that lacks equal rights for women and France that forces its citizens into the military!
You can turn this discussion into US-bashing and "dumbfuck American" bashing if you want but I'll just check out here. Nice speaking with you anyway. I now have a new favorite poster. Welcome aboard man.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #309963]
|
Mon, 10 September 2012 08:51
|
|
Bruno |
Messages:1
Registered:September 2012 |
|
|
Regardless of personal experiences,
The increase of minimum wage in Thailand and legislation, giving Venezuelan workers more rights, are two totally different topics with two totally different effects.
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Chavez Signs New Labour Law in Act of [message #310228]
|
Sun, 16 September 2012 20:12
|
|
Khor1255 |
|
Messages:1817
Registered:August 2003 Location: Pleasantville, NJ |
|
|
abradleytaoVenezuela
[Updated on: Sun, 16 September 2012 20:23] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Mar 29 08:26:15 GMT+2 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01898 seconds
|