Go Back   Corvette Forum > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Albums Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ
Search
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-26-2012, 09:39 PM   #61
tempest62
CF Senior Member
 
tempest62's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
Yep.....


Depends on the situation.......
there is no "depends", unless you're wearing them. you're either happy to stay, or not.

for once in your life, cut out the relativism, the fence sitting, and the nonsense.
tempest62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 09:39 PM   #62
Red99SS
CF Senior Member

 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest62 View Post
there is no "depends", unless you're wearing them.
WTF
Red99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 09:42 PM   #63
Dave1
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09
 
Dave1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post

I want to read it in your own words, in one sentence.


How are we socialist?



1.) Do your own homework if you can't figure out what Medicare and SS are all about.......
Dave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 09:49 PM   #64
Dave1
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09
 
Dave1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest62 View Post
there is no "depends", unless you're wearing them. you're either happy to stay, or not.

for once in your life, cut out the relativism, the fence sitting, and the nonsense.
You weren't born to be able to read between the lines obviously.....


Depends is a perfect qualifier......

"If" it came down to no benefits and half the pay, I'd say no and remain in a union......

If it was something different, something somewhat respectable, well then yes there would be an opportunity to opt out......

You don't know that I worked non union jobs until I was thirty so, don't assume too much......
Dave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 09:55 PM   #65
tempest62
CF Senior Member
 
tempest62's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
You weren't born to be able to read between the lines obviously.....


Depends is a perfect qualifier......

"If" it came down to no benefits and half the pay, I'd say no and remain in a union......

If it was something different, something somewhat respectable, well then yes there would be an opportunity to opt out......

You don't know that I worked non union jobs until I was thirty so, don't assume too much......
if your union inflates pay/benefits artificially high vs. the average in your market segment, then i'm calling you a socialist.
tempest62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:03 PM   #66
Red99SS
CF Senior Member

 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post



1.) Do your own homework if you can't figure out what Medicare and SS are all about.......
You don't understand the fundamental difference between welfare and socialism, and you're telling ME to do my homework???

Red99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:03 PM   #67
Dave1
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09
 
Dave1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest62 View Post
if your union inflates pay/benefits artifically high vs. the average in your market segment, then i'm calling you a socialist.
Well since that's not the case,

**** that Walmart mentality......


And **** those who strive for a race to the bottom for wages and benefits......

We have short term contracts and we've voted in pay cuts and across the board when the company was in trouble just like all "good unions" should do when times get tough.....

We might be in for another round of pay cuts and job losses next summer. That's part of the business and I'm prepared.....

Not what you thought huh.......?
Dave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:05 PM   #68
Red99SS
CF Senior Member

 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
And **** those who strive for a race to the bottom for wages and benefits......
Complete and utter strawman. Wanting wages to return to market values is not a "race to the bottom."
Red99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:07 PM   #69
Dave1
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09
 
Dave1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Houston Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
You don't understand the fundamental difference between welfare and socialism, and you're telling ME to do my homework???




You're killing me........
Dave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:16 PM   #70
PJC6
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!

 
PJC6's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2007
Location: Buckeye Arizona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest62 View Post
there is no "depends", unless you're wearing them. you're either happy to stay, or not.

for once in your life, cut out the relativism, the fence sitting, and the nonsense.
Trying to get a definitive, no nonsense response is impossible....

Why did you vote for a Marxist socialist Dave? Why do you still support this agenda Dave? I have asked this before and never received an answer...oh wait it is in post # blabla....my god do you read what you post?
PJC6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:19 PM   #71
VetVetter
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VetVetter's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: YOU SEE ... I'M NOT CRAZY ...I'M JUST AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 02*C5 View Post
Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformist to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solution. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy of an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[7] Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (17711858) tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninist, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).


So what can we gather from this. Being socialist is that the government has a central control of everything, from businesses, to how everything is doled out in a community. Thus anything that the government sponsors whether it is a social program or controlling the market it is considered socialism.

So back to the comment made by VetVetter


Our countries government has always had a say so in our market. You can say that the revolutionary war was a war to socialize our countries industry. Why is that because the South wanted to secede the North and thus take everything the South was making which was the large share crop of the U.S. over all income which was farming. President Lincoln then we can say that he was one of the first socialist in America. He would not let the market figure itself out. He wanted to control what was happening and would not let the South do their own thing so instead of the great liberator Lincoln was the greatest socialist of his time. Freeing the black slaves was actually a way to take the eye of the ball which was his socialist agenda to keep America's industries together under one governmental control.

Again this also extends to social programs, why because you as the government are taking from those who make money and give to those who do not make money. I mean if we really look at it a place like Africa, Afghanistan and many other countries are really not socialist. You work for your keep and if you do not work and feed yourself or your family you die. So in the grand scheem of things what happen in our great Revolutionary war we opened the flood gates to socialism. We as Americans and its government at the time could not and would not let the market figure out what was going to happen, thus making a war that pit brother against brother just so our government could keep control of everything that was being produce in this "great" country. So realistically We are the biggest socialist country with deeper roots in this than Russia, Germany or any other country we deem socialist. VetVetter was right this has been one big ****ing lie since the get go.

Any one care to debunk this statement please do so.
I'd argue some of the timeline ... but to steal from Ayn Rand - it started with the late 1800's Protestant movement of being your brother's keeper. Then formalized with Wilson.

We started down the road to socialism when we began to incorporate into our cultural psyche that it was our "duty" to look after our fellow man on a moralistic reasoning.

So .... ever since it has become more and more and more a part of our mentality, culture, and basic thought process to "think of others" in respect to a measure of personal morality. Which is fatal.

It is the wrong reasoning. Should we look after each other? Of course - for certain reasons and to a certain degree. We are social creatures and need each other. There's no division of labour and pursuit of happiness without one another.

However, we need to look after each other in such a manner that it benefits us as individuals. Not because it is morally right.

I look after my employees and pay them well. Because I need them. I don't **** where I live because I want a nice neighborhood. I don't want to see people unemployed because I will have no customers.

Now - for all my wishes ... I CANNOT make people go to work, take care of their houses, or buy my ****. No matter how much money, hope or caring I put into it.

The only way I can get someone else to take care of themselves is to leave them no alternative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
And police and fire protection are NOT SOCIALISM, no matter how many times you say it is.
Of course it is. If you take any service that is provide for the "people" where some may benefit and other may not directly - that is specifically socialism.

Adam Smith talked about this. As he did with such "public works" as roads (zietlow.com/docs/adamsmith.pdf page 9) he would say that such "services" that MAY be needed or used by people should not be "encumbered [by] the national budget".

Does a national roadway help the nation? Yes. It indirectly helps everyone since it enables better trade, commerce, etc. HOWEVER, he argued that tolls paid by direct users should pay for road.

Now - are police and fire services different? You can argue yes. But semantically, services provided across the board which are paid by a general tax is a social benefit ... ergo - it's socialistic.

Semantics maybe? Perhaps. Does it make a nation with police and fireman a gleaming example of Marxism - of course not.

But if we are to save America and steer the ship back on course - these very basic principles need to be understood.

Of course we want police and fireman .... but it is a form of socialism .... and from accepting the concept of general protection at the cost to the masses by taxation we have run down the slippery slope to taxes for taking care of parks, the old, the poor, the stupid, the sick, and then to regulations to make sure it's all "fair" ......
VetVetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:25 PM   #72
VetVetter
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VetVetter's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: YOU SEE ... I'M NOT CRAZY ...I'M JUST AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJC6 View Post
Trying to get a definitive, no nonsense response is impossible....

Why did you vote for a Marxist socialist Dave? Why do you still support this agenda Dave? I have asked this before and never received an answer...oh wait it is in post # blabla....my god do you read what you post?
Because of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetVetter View Post

We started down the road to socialism when we began to incorporate into our cultural psyche that it was our "duty" to look after our fellow man on a moralistic reasoning.

So .... ever since it has become more and more and more a part of our mentality, culture, and basic thought process to "think of others" in respect to a measure of personal morality. Which is fatal.

It is the wrong reasoning. Should we look after each other? Of course - for certain reasons and to a certain degree. We are social creatures and need each other. There's no division of labour and pursuit of happiness without one another.

However, we need to look after each other in such a manner that it benefits us as individuals. Not because it is morally right.
People want to be accepted, thought of as good, as good part of the tribe and contributing. That is part of our hardwiring ... it has to be.

Take that hard wiring and incorporate a level of moral judgement based on how you "feel" about others ... well .... look around.

All this ******** today about "fellow man" is utter nonsense.

I asked a lib here - if you care so much about your fellow man and the hard times today .... how many unemployed, homeless people are you taking care of in your basement?

None. Why? Well - in reality .... we really don't give a **** about other people enough to encumber our own personal lives. But we have it drilled in our heads that if we think that way we are morally bankrupt.

It's all a mind ****.
VetVetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:31 PM   #73
DVNTST8
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09
 
DVNTST8's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: if you have a ? on my avatar, please contact me directly, you spineless twit
dvnt_st8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 02*C5 View Post
Socialism is everything America was not until the end of the Bush era and the begining of the Obama era. While I do mot blame GW forbwhats going on now, he did lay the ground work. We blindly followed our GOP leaders as they said we needed to "bail out" America. This made it easy for osama to come in and keep the wool over those blinded rinos.

Socialism is everything that my brothers and I have fought against the begining of this nation and in one swift swoop of 6 yrs this country has slowly been turning into. I know that every man and woman that has died in the battle field fighting to protect the constitution and fight against socialism is turning in their very grave.

So sad that this country sacrifisex in vain so many men women and even children who blindly fought for this great nation to be slapped in the face as they all have. Every so called American that has supported everything that has happened in the last 6 yrs and specially this administration needs to find a cemetery and spit on the graves of every veteran burried there because tgat is exactly what this administration.has done and all who.supported it from its inception.
I was going to respectfully disagree, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetVetter View Post
Sorry to burst that bubble but ... we turned well before Bush.

To the OP ... we are already socialists. Started end of 19th century and was "formally" accepted beginning with Wilson.

When we accepted the stupid principle that we "owe" our brother's keep ... we became socialists .... just a run-of-the-mill pack.
Then this happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post


Nothing in the smoke screen sell for Socialism ever mentions the impending two party class...the ruling class and the servant class and once established, the ruling class becomes generational.
That is if you believe there are truly two parties, and those parties are Democrats and Republicans.

However, if you have waken up to the fact that the Republicans and the Democrats are separate arms of the same party (and if you take the blinders off, you can see it), then there is a ruling 'class'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 02*C5 View Post
I dont agree with that notion. There where points if socialism, there where precursers to socialims, but we alsways had some one to fix it. The last 6 yrs have been under complete socialist control. But if you want to think about it like that then we have always been a socialist country. There where social programs to help the poor whites from day one that where brought over from England so if we go by your perception then we have always been a socialist nation with glimpses of freedom. So your right then we agree it has been a lie since its inception. So why in the fck change anything why are we bitching. This whole fcking time this country has been nothing but a lie and we all except for a few like yourself have seen the truth yet there is nothing you all couldbhave done so really we are just wasting our time fighting in what has been the truth all along.
The socialists knew, and implemented, a slow conversion, knowing that people in this country wouldn't put up with what happened in the Soviet Union. In addition to that, since the citizens have the capability to be armed, it would have been extremely bloody to stage a Soviet or South American style revolution.

Lincoln didn't start the socialist creep, but he did unlock the door, by centralizing power.

TR started it, Wilson advanced it greatly, FDR 'removed the governor on it', so-to-speak, and LBJ turbocharged it.

The Bezmenov videos on Youtube, the liberalization of the schools (the Dept of Ed), regulation, regulation, regulation.

It's not hard to see it if you want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
No, that's welfare. There's a key difference.
Welfare is a progressive/liberal/socialist tool to create dependency on the gov't for basic needs. And it has work flawlessly like they designed it.


For Dave1, you can be a policeman or a fireman, and not belong to a union, in theory (think back to before unions came into vogue). Public safety personnel aren't socialist entities in their true form, but once they form/join a union, the UNION is the socialist entity.
DVNTST8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:33 PM   #74
Red99SS
CF Senior Member

 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetVetter View Post
Of course it is. If you take any service that is provide for the "people" where some may benefit and other may not directly - that is specifically socialism.
No. That's not even slightly what socialism is. The cop shop is a PUBLIC GOOD. It's something the private sector can't realistically provide, thus the need for a public service. The government providing public goods is not socialism. The government taking over NON public industry, like health insurance or auto making, THAT is socialism. By YOUR definition, any government that exists at all is socialist.
Red99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:38 PM   #75
02*C5
CF Senior Member
 
02*C5's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2009
Location: Sahuarita AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetVetter View Post
I'd argue some of the timeline ... but to steal from Ayn Rand - it started with the late 1800's Protestant movement of being your brother's keeper. Then formalized with Wilson.

We started down the road to socialism when we began to incorporate into our cultural psyche that it was our "duty" to look after our fellow man on a moralistic reasoning.

So .... ever since it has become more and more and more a part of our mentality, culture, and basic thought process to "think of others" in respect to a measure of personal morality. Which is fatal.

It is the wrong reasoning. Should we look after each other? Of course - for certain reasons and to a certain degree. We are social creatures and need each other. There's no division of labour and pursuit of happiness without one another.

However, we need to look after each other in such a manner that it benefits us as individuals. Not because it is morally right.

I look after my employees and pay them well. Because I need them. I don't **** where I live because I want a nice neighborhood. I don't want to see people unemployed because I will have no customers.

Now - for all my wishes ... I CANNOT make people go to work, take care of their houses, or buy my ****. No matter how much money, hope or caring I put into it.

The only way I can get someone else to take care of themselves is to leave them no alternative.
But why would you argue with the time line? Its simple, did Lincoln use a war to keep the south producing plantations under one government control? Its a simple yes or no. We can agree that he did not go to war to really free the slaves, we can also agree that he did not go to war because there was nothing better to do. The south was planning in taking their share crop, and not being part of the the whole U.S. Thus having their own government and their own industry. The North did not want that because they knew they would falter. So I will ask again;

Did Lincoln use a war to keep Southern state producing plantations under one governmental control? Would this not be considered a form of socialism?
02*C5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:40 PM   #76
theandies
CF Senior Member

 
theandies's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
That post was custom made for the person I replied to.....


And yes, cops and FF's are union members......
Watch your step there Daveyboy..............My town has an ALL VOLUNTEER fire department just like thousands around the country. No union here. Must really suck thinking you know everything and really don't. I guess that's what SOCIALSTS as you do.
__________________

"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it".
Thomas Jefferson

We do not have to destroy America with missiles; America will destroy itself from within.
Nikita Khrushchev 1961
theandies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:43 PM   #77
02*C5
CF Senior Member
 
02*C5's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2009
Location: Sahuarita AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVNTST8 View Post
Lincoln didn't start the socialist creep, but he did unlock the door, by centralizing power.



from that point forward the people knew that the central government would do anything to keep control like it or not. This thus opened the door later on for socialist in power to know that if push came to shove they would some day be able to use power to keep control because it had been done before and it was accepted as a "Civil War" thus having history on their side because it was for the "good of the country."

That action alone has led to where we are at today, opening the door ever so slightly, so VetVetter was right, thus started a long time ago, but it was a lot longer than we thought.
02*C5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:51 PM   #78
VetVetter
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VetVetter's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: YOU SEE ... I'M NOT CRAZY ...I'M JUST AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
No. That's not even slightly what socialism is. The cop shop is a PUBLIC GOOD. It's something the private sector can't realistically provide, thus the need for a public service. The government providing public goods is not socialism. The government taking over NON public industry, like health insurance or auto making, THAT is socialism. By YOUR definition, any government that exists at all is socialist.
Private sector runs prisons. Why not law enforcement?

A police chief who is a public employee is more neutral or partial than one from a company? Or a public employee is more "professional" looking out after the "public" than a private employee?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
I think it's fairly disturbing we live in a time when the police regularly break into the wrong houses and the reaction is "She's lucky she didn't get shot." Is this freedom?
A police department of a private company would be more concerned about $$ .... but public one not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
Public sector employees, with the exemption of police writing tickets, [B][SIZE="5"]do not generate revenue for a town.
Public employees are easier to control and ensure they do what they are supposed to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
The gravy train came off the tracks, and it was conducted and crewed by public employees. Their own damn fault. I love when people use the term "negotiate" in regards for public employees. It's like two gangsters deciding how to split up the loot they stole from a passerby.

The people elected this mayor, most likely on grounds he would do this to balance the budget, and he did it. What's the matter, you don't like NEGOTIATION when the people footing the bill actually get a say???
Public employees are cheaper or budgetting is easier?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
And when you pay "fees," you entrust your home to the town just as much, because it's the same police arresting Mr. Baddy, and it's the same firefighters putting out your kitchen fire.

Changing the name from "property tax" to "fees" does nothing but make some people feel good. How about if they just started calling it "municipal fee," would that work?
VetVetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:55 PM   #79
VetVetter
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VetVetter's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: YOU SEE ... I'M NOT CRAZY ...I'M JUST AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
No. That's not even slightly what socialism is. The cop shop is a PUBLIC GOOD. It's something the private sector can't realistically provide, thus the need for a public service. The government providing public goods is not socialism. The government taking over NON public industry, like health insurance or auto making, THAT is socialism. By YOUR definition, any government that exists at all is socialist.
Now ... this is exactly what A. Smith and true concept of how cost structuring to individuals should be


Quote:
Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
I don't see what's wrong with charging fat people more for insurance. I got a speeding ticket, and my auto insurance went up. I am a higher risk to insure. If i suddenly put on 150 pounds, I am a higher risk.
VetVetter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:55 PM   #80
JustinStrife
CF Senior Member

 
JustinStrife's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: Lake Havasu AZ
Justinstrife justinstrife unholy z06
Send a message via AIM to JustinStrife Send a message via MSN to JustinStrife Send a message via Yahoo to JustinStrife
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetVetter View Post
Private sector runs prisons. Why not law enforcement?

A police chief who is a public employee is more neutral or partial than one from a company? Or a public employee is more "professional" looking out after the "public" than a private employee?



A police department of a private company would be more concerned about $$ .... but public one not?



Public employees are easier to control and ensure they do what they are supposed to?



Public employees are cheaper or budgetting is easier?
JustinStrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 10:55 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page What does socialism mean to you?
 
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Emails & Password Backup

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2