Fine, reverse the logic if need be. So if a 49 person company worth 50 million decides they need another janitor they'll need to willingly give the new employee a cool million bucks as a sign on bonus for swabbing stalls. Lets get real.
And that is quite possible. I can't honestly claim to know how the mind of a terrorist/Islamist works - not even close. They clearly place little value on human life. It still seems, as the results bear out, that what they did was extremely dangerous for themselves as well as others. I believe the principle applies. If the terrorists committed their act in the open it would be more dangerous for them than it already was, and unnecessarily so. Once a brave soldier has exhausted his ammunition I think he would retreat to a location where he could resupply just as these bastards left after blowing their bombs. I suppose. However if a job can be accomplished without killing yourself do they prefer the method that involves killing yourself? Seems like they'd all be dead by now if that was the case. There is no justification for what they did. It is absolute evil. However I don't know that it was cowardice. I heard some people calling those that flew planes into the twin-towers cowards as well. They committed the suicide for their glory of Allah. I can think of plenty of names to call them. However would you call those that flew into the towers cowards as well?
Brave and not so brave soldiers fight battles against an armed enemy. That doesn't imply that all soldiers might feel the war just and worthy of loss of life but they are battling sworn enemies. Terrorists kill unarmed enemies without provocation or warning or war declaration. We tend to think of them as innocents but I presume the terrorists consider them enemies. That's cowardice. If terrorists wanted to be brave they would attack an Army Fort or installation. Still dead either way but a clearer message. This shouldn't be that difficult to figure out.
And drinking and driving is extremely dangerous for drunk drivers themselves as well as others, do you hold a drunk drivers in high regard too? Nope. Not even close. Again you confuse the fact that running away is part of the plan for a terrorist-- not a matter of circumstance as with a solder. Your admiration is misplaced. We are not discussing what are preferred tactics-- its about what is valued as courage or bravery. Acts of terror are pure acts of cowardice--no matter how hard you try to romanticize about it. Then what is it? Yes, without hesitation.
Admiration? Romanticize? I think it is pure evil in the name of their false and bloody war-mongering god. I absolutely loathe their actions. Not sure why you think I admire it.
Perhaps the problem is that you have no idea what the definition of cowardice is: "lack of courage in facing danger, pain, or difficulty" Moronic - yes. Depraved - yes. Cowardly - no. Willing to die for what they believe in is not cowardice, even though what they believe in is stupid, evil and wrong.
Otherwise, these menial jobs would have to be done by the million-dollar employees, so it does save a million dollars to have someone else do it. Besides, an employee-stockholder only gets a share of the dividends, not of the book value of the company, which is just a producer of the dividends. He can't sell the stock, so how is it worth a million dollars to him when there's no outside market to buy it? Equal shares and different salaries. A janitor is not going to vote a salary for an engineer that it as low as his own, because then the company wouldn't make the profits where his dividend comes from. Anticipating a typical stubborn refusal to understand economic self-government, I expect to be asked, "What's to prevent the employees from distributing all profits as dividends?" You refuse to admit that you could say the same thing about Capitalist stockholders.
The idea is to get the job done. Terrozing the innocent is a traditional rule of war. Wars are not fought between armies, they are fought between nations. Was our bombing of Hiroshima cowardice?
Clearly I'm not the one who is confused here. The Boston Bomber definitively showed a "lack of courage in facing danger, pain, or difficulty" as they laid their backpack down, walked away to a safe distance and then triggered the bomb remotely. True, willing to die for what you believe is dedication. Cowardice is attributed to the motive behind the action. Willing to kill innocent people with a bomb you plant and set off remotely is cowardice. You confuse dedication with cowardice.
Their heroes are Chickenhawks, so they don't understand what courage is or even when it is not especially useful. Therefore, they don't understand what cowardice is either. They are really describing themselves. If they call others "coward," they hope it will hide their own cowardice. In a similar attempt to distract others from criticizing them, they accuse Gubmint of being oppressive while ignoring their own voluntary slavishness to corporate power. Brown-noses are yellow.
What idea is that?, to kill unarmed, unaware, non-threatening people? Where in the Geneva conventions does it say that? War IS fought between armies, its declared between nations. No, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to put an end to the war and to save American and Japanese lives. And in retrospect, it was the best thing that could have happened to Japan.
Thinking that our enemies are cowards or madmen will lead to disaster. After all, why take the threat seriously if they are cowards? If you had been in combat like I have, you wouldn't be so ignorant about this subject. Is the drone-bombing tactic cowardice? Are we supposed to sacrifice our pilots' lives just to make you feel courageous at their expense? The idea is to get the job done, not to stupidly play hero. In Vietnam, I was overjoyed when a Phantom jet bailed us out. According to childish Chickenhawks, I should have felt ashamed of not fighting it out with the Viet Cong and letting napalm save my life. Your draftdodging heroes should have been excluded from ever having any influence on people's thinking about national defense.
The air-conditioned ethics of the Geneva Convention were dictated by Chickenhawks, rear-area snobs, pacifists, and appeasers. The privileged pseudo-moralists who imposed such restrictions never had to fight and didn't know what they were talking about. We should quit obeying such elitist laws. In war, such rules caused the deaths of many of our men. As they say about using your gun to defend yourself, "I'd rather have nine jurors judging me than 6 pallbearers burying me."
I don't care if you got the Medal of Honor in Vietnam; if you support rich kids' privilege to have their Daddies get them out of having to fight there, you have no honor.
Speak for youself, I make lots of money from big corporations and their successes have afforded me a very nice retirement nestegg.
So if the company doesn't exist who is going to hire the employees and where are they suppose to get the money to purchase the shares so the company then has the money to form itself and purchase the assets and capital equipment it needs to produce something? So they take the wealth of the existing employees and give it to a new one. IOW you have 50 employees who own the 50 shares which are equal to the value of the company, each share equals 1/50 the value of the company. So when you hire a new employee and create the 51st share all the others are devalued by 1/50th. And what happens when an employee quits, the corporation takes their wealth, the stock they own, from them? What if they don't want to make a "slight sacrifice" of their wealth to give to a new employee who has done nothing so far to earn it?
Kindly try to debate respectfully, without the back and forth insults and flame baiting. If you don't think you can, you are welcome to leave the thread. Thank you Shangrila Site Moderator
I'm not big on subsidies of any kind. Funny though how a big chunk of them go to already well off businesses. I'm trying to verify that $64,000 comment. You have a link for that from a neutral source? There's got to be more to it than that.
Nobody is "forced" to join a union. Simply put, don't take a union job if you don't want to join a union. No one is forcing you to take that job are they?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html And this: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
First off, let's find a source that is not propaganda. Next, quote from the article: "According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011." So what they've done is made a false conclusion based on a silly assumption, that all people who have an income below the poverty line are on assistance, many if not most are not, and the second assumptioon, that all federal and state spending pays out as welfare for every person under the poverty line. Another example of making up (*)(*)(*)(*) and presenting it as fact. The story sir is all made up bull (*)(*)(*)(*) designed specifically to enrage the troops.
