Back in the 50's and 60's,the jobs were hunting you.
cuhulin

bush is a commie new world order facist bastid.That Son Of a
Bitch!!!!!!!!1 was shootin his finger at America after they just
recently brought on cafta.LOOK,I DONT!!!! support bush!!!!!!
cuhulin

Half price Peruvians in Iraq,taking Americans Jobs.
cuhulin

NUKE ALL politicians!
cuhulin

Honus wrote:

There will be a collection taken for pots of honey.

The house smearing party will be announced in due course.


House? Is that how you guys in Canada spell the word "trailer"?


Sorry. I should have said 'domicile' or 'place of residence'. I don't know that
happened. Even tornados know about trailer parks..sheeesh..


mike

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ...

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:3S6Me.255098$_o.133794@attbi_s71...

"David" wrote in message
...


It used to be that American companies were in business so that
American people could make a living while the business owners made a
tidy little profit for themselves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Never had any economics 101 have you?? US corps.
have NEVER been in the business of providing jobs. They have been
in business to make a profit to keep their stockholders happy. Which
gets harder to do as time goes on from competition. Back in the 50s
and 60s their simply wasnt much competition because overseas countries
hadnt really industrialized much yet. Starting with the 70s things chaged,
3rd world countries started industrializing and making the same products
for cheaper.

Economics 102:

If US corporations do not hire US workers, and continue to move those jobs
overseas, eventually they will lose all those profits they had hoped to
gain. This because those workers who either no longer have jobs at all, or
have jobs at Burger King or 7-11, can no longer afford to buy the products
of said corporations. Add to this that the rest of the world will not be
able to afford them, either, since the wages they pay their overseas workers
are not sufficient to support the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It still boils down to keeping the stockholders happy and
investing. If you lose that battle, there is no company to worry
about. This is what happened to the steel industry in the mid- late
70's. The US companies were prdominatley using old antiquated
non efficient bessomer type kilns from the 30s and the Japanese
built brand new computer controlled electric foundries that could
melt 20-30 tons of steel in 30 minutes. US investors lost confidence
and moved there money elesewhere and the results are history.
Which scenerio is worse??

"David" wrote in message ...



Never had any economics 101 have you?? US corps.
have NEVER been in the business of providing jobs. They have been
in business to make a profit to keep their stockholders happy. Which
gets harder to do as time goes on from competition. Back in the 50s
and 60s their simply wasnt much competition because overseas countries
hadnt really industrialized much yet. Starting with the 70s things chaged,
3rd world countries started industrializing and making the same products
for cheaper.


Read your founding documents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What does the founding documents have to do with the price of
eggs??? The government does not, should not be involved in private
industry. ????????????????????????????????????

DaviD - The US Citizens are Paying Attention.
However, they are NOT Paying Attention to 'you' !

DaviD - " Ross Perot nailed it. "

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
...but maybe, if we read carefully enough, we could instead assume,
based on your words, that none of us has any idea - maybe there are no
evil forces at all laughing.

Your wrong.

Prove it. Unless you know something that the rest of us non-CIA
operatives cannot... this is just an opinion.

And perhaps our government *hasn't* been
square with us. Wouldn't be the first time, nor, I'd wager, the last.

No government has ever been completely square with anybody.

I rest my case. And when a government isn't square, you question it
and challenge it.

I think it's rather weird to support a President on every position he
represents, whether we agree with that position or not. He isn't God,
for God's sake...just a fallible human, like you and me. This, without
even getting into the question of his generalized competency for the
job. Frankly, if he's wrong, he's WRONG and we have an obligation to
try to correct his path. We can argue about whether he is wrong until
doomsday, but eventually we must take the lead.

I don't support him on every position and frankly I support him on very
little but I do support him in regards to Iraq and the extremists Muslim
or
any other fanatical group that seeks our demise.

Iraq seeks our demise? OOO-Kay....then you may support him. I don't
take your assertions as the gospel, however, and thus I question and
challenge. "Iraq and the extremist Muslims" don't necessarily go
together, by the way - another assumption of convenience.

We condemn other peoples of history of marching lock-step with their
leaders down dubious paths, whether they be Fascist, Communist,
self-styled two-bit dictators or whatever. Should we not be more
circumspact when it comes to our own leaders so that we can at least
try to keep the worst parts of history from repeating themselves?

Just because some of us believe the only way to purge the planet of scum
is
to kill them off doesn't mean we blindly follow our leaders.

You side-stepped the question. It still stands, although you can
ignore it if your wish.

In any case - your definition of "scum" and mine *may* vary (in this
case it does, a little bit, although mostly it is the same), and -

If our leaders do not wisely choose their scum to purge, then we are
wasting our own time, our own people and our own money.

Bruce Jensen


Good luck to you Bruce.

B.H.