Right. There were so many things overlooked. Those in power in the US had no idea of nor did they care to have any understanding of the beliefs of Islamic people. And the lack of any coordination between agencies here didn't help. Wouldn't one think that men taking flying lessons only wanted to know how to fly the plane, not to take off or land might have been questioned up the line? It seems we're back to square one on the rights of other people's belief. Those planning a war ought to know their enemy, we did not, in part we made them the enemy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Socialist Bernie Sanders won't even pay his own staff a 'living' wage.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Right. There were so many things overlooked. Those in power in the US had no idea of nor did they care to have any understanding of the beliefs of Islamic people. And the lack of any coordination between agencies here didn't help. Wouldn't one think that men taking flying lessons only wanted to know how to fly the plane, not to take off or land might have been questioned up the line? It seems we're back to square one on the rights of other people's belief. Those planning a war ought to know their enemy, we did not, in part we made them the enemy.
Audie
Veteran Member
Intelligence failures on the part of every nation tend
to be in larger numbers and of greater impact than their successes.
This does not help, but the US really has little interest
in their concerns.
The USA sits astride the world, controlling it like no
power ever imagined doing before. Hegemony is
hardly adequate a word. There is no rival power.
US policy for all its mistakes and ham fisted nature
is at is core, to disrupt any attempt at a coalition
sufficient to in any way challenge the USA.
Iraq was positioning to take over the middle east.
WMD? Who cares. Gettin' too big for britches, so
bust it up.
The USA only "made them" the enemy in this sense.
In all too many cases the enemy was their own people. Should we have stepped in? in some cases how could we not? And we did not operate unilaterally.
Audie
Veteran Member
I think overall, as long as they stay poor
weak and disorganized, the USA wont
much care what else they do.
Neutral Name
Active Member
I never said that employees should have an equal share just a fair share.
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Ah, so the U.S. deserved 9-11?
SugarOcean
¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
Stop with the vacant accusations.
You don't know a lot about Afghan American history do you.
Are you aware that the suicide hijackers on those planes were Saudi? Not Afghani.
Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Shad
Veteran Member
That was socialism is though. There is no investor, no majority owner, just the workers.
Neutral Name
Active Member
I didn't say just the workers. I said that the workers deserved fairness.
Shad
Veteran Member
You are misunderstanding. I am talking about socialism itself. Your idea isn't socialism.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I guess it will have to join the archives of the mysterious and unsolved , right alongside with, "Who killed the Kennedys"?
What if those 3 employees made a condition that, in order to agree to work for you, they want a share of the company? What if you couldn't find anyone else and needed those three employees to keep your company afloat?
Shad
Veteran Member
These type of models work in a capitalist system. I have no issues if all parties agree. However socialism tends to involve the state trying to make in mandatory. That is the primary example and the one that has failed.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Don't voters have the right in a democracy to do that? Bernie, for example, believes we'd be better served by having something similar to "Scandinavian (democratic) socialism".
Also, no matter which economic system a country may have, there are some things that will be "mandatory" because that's what all governments do.
Also, no matter which economic system a country may have, there are some things that will be "mandatory" because that's what all governments do.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Salaries are a percentage of receipts. Let's pass a law doing the same thing with the big corporations. I would support a bill limited CEO pay to 500 times the median worker's wage within a company. Thanks for the great idea!
I think Bernie is great. I hope he wins the nomination this time but the election will probably be rigged like last time.
Audie
Veteran Member
"Fair" Kind of hard to define.
Neutral Name
Active Member
To me, it means a living wage. If people are living better on welfare than they are by working, something isn't right. With welfare their housing, medical care, basic utilities and, often, childcare are paid for. So, a working person shouldn't be earning less than that or why even work? When working people qualify for welfare, there is a problem.
I am particularly talking about large corporations which have little concern for their employees. In particular, Amazon comes to mind. Isn't Jeff Bezos the richest person in America by now, maybe even the world? His employees have been overworked and stressed out for a decent but not great amount of money so that he can make himself even richer. Just how much money does he need? He can afford to hire more employees to take the stress off the workers he currently employs.
I think that Reader's Digest, Time and USA Today are not fanatical media but they have all reported on this.
How Much Money Amazon Employees Really Make
I Worked at an Amazon Fulfillment Center; They Treat Workers Like Robots
Amazon Prime Day strike: Minnesota workers are protesting on company's biggest day
This is, obviously, greedy on his part. This should not even be legal. It is right up there with sweat shops and child labor.
Sorry, Audie. I'm not picking on you. I'm just posting all of my feelings for anyone to see.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Actually I would agree pay tethering is worth considering. I'm not for runaway and out of control corporations either, although I would encourage profit sharing more than pay tethering.
I would concede that overcentralized micromanagement and too much bureaucracy can be seriously flawed. Although that's more an issue of organization and administration, which may or may not have anything to do with who actually owns a given business enterprise.
Organized labor certainly has a role in a free market system, but that's also proven to be a sorepoint when looking back over our own history. As you say, "if all parties agree," there should be no issue, but if all parties do not agree, then that's when the problems start. That's usually when the state has to get involved.
Shad
Veteran Member
Lack of agreement is not a ground to get involved by the state. That is the problem.