View Full Version : US Talks Democracy, Acts Communist
03-21-2003, 12:30 PM
While enforcing democratic ideals around the world, through use of force when necessary, the USA continues down the path towards communist rule at home.
Notable in the efforts of the America Government to redistribute the wealth of citizens and corporations, a hallmark of communism, is a recent decision by the Justice Department to force Altria, formerly known as Phillip Morris to forfeit $289 billion in profits derived from a half-century of conducting business. The US Government and citizens were unable to legally get at Phillip Morris's bank account for many years though not for lack of trying. Finally, lawmakers changed the laws, paving the way to the cigarette makers coffers.
Tell me how you link the Justice system to Communism? What laws were changed? What were the original laws, and can you tell us when the law change was brought to the floor for vote and what was the agenda?
A simple answer is not that easy, and neither is your link to Communism. Here is one definition of Communism:
[ QUOTE ]
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. <hr /></blockquote> Could you please tell me how a lawsuit against a tobacco company is equally shared by the people. Surely you know about tort law and you know that the lawyers were the ones that made all the money. There was no equal distribution among all the class in the suit. Some people receive more than others. Also, how does this help me. I am not a smoker and was not part of the suing class.
This has nothing to do with Communism. If you are more worried about the government controlling private business then socialism would be a closer fit. Communism is too far away. Russia tried Communism and every worker was put to work earning the same wage, receiving the same rations and on and on. Besides the dictator that ruled, this system does not work because business and quality go down hill. Why should I try harder at my job when I can slouch and make the same money as you will.
03-21-2003, 02:39 PM
My mistake. Make that Socialist.
The cigarette companies were getting sued left and right by smokers who took ill, but not one suit went to the plantiffs. A few years ago, certain laws were changed which made it possible for these kind of suits to be successful. The cigarette companies are now losing the lawsuits which induced them to make a deal offering to pay billions of dollars for guarenteed immunity from all future suits. Something like that. I don't know all the details. But the crux of the matter is the Government changed the laws to make the company pay. They changed the rules after the game had started. Foul!
Lack of Self-Responsibility.
No more can be said than that. This is evident in smokers looking to sue tobacco companies, and fat people wanting to sue McDonalds. It goes even further to crime. When the new police chief in LA started cracking down on crime, he was being charged with abusing the teenagers when they were being arrested. One day when leaving court, a mother (mother of a criminal who just beat the crap of an elderly woman for $20) walk up to the chief and told him she hated him for allowing his police officers to beat up her precious little boy. What did the Chief say (said with the news camera in his face), "Ma'am, maybe this is your fault for not taking more of an interest in your child while he was growing up." He then went on to ask her what the elderly lady felt. The mother had no problem with the fact that her son brutually attacked this elderly woman, all the mother cared about was her son had a broken jaw.
Sorry for getting a little off subject. It all still ties in with the fact that smokers were trying to get paid for living a life of smoking and it has killed some. I wonder who the marijuana smokers are going to try to sue when they get sick, after all, it is not their fault either.
03-22-2003, 11:16 AM
The 'grey-area factor' of the smokers' side(s) is that the nicotine in the tobacco is very addictive--and that it has been publicly denied to be addictive, by the tobacco companies.
And, while I personally feel that it is within the realm of the "average" person to quit smoking/nicotine, some say that it is not a question of willpower.
I classify myself as a rare-occasion smoker (used to smoke cigars--before they were in modern vogue, and moved on to rolling pipe-tobacco cigarrettes when they were. . . .), but I can't personally attest to the willpower factor. However, I CAN say that my father and step-mother started smoking in their teens, and stopped cold-turkey a few years back. My dad had been a smoker at least 30 years.
~~regardless that Big Tobacco lied about the addictive properties of nicotine, I would think that most people would understand that lighting something on fire, and inhaling it, is not good for them! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The 'grey-area factor' of the smokers' side(s) is that the nicotine in the tobacco is very addictive--and that it has been publicly denied to be addictive, by the tobacco companies. <hr /></blockquote> I guess this could be a greay area, however, since I don't smoke I have trouble relating to it. I will say, everytime someone picks up a cigarette, they still have a choice whether to light it or not. This definitely sounds insensitive and I am sorry, there really is no other way to put it. I am so worried about addictions that I almost never even use an entire presecription from a doctor.
I guess when it all comes down to the facts, everyone is prewarned about the harmfulness of tobacco on the side of the pack. If one chooses to continue after that, who is to blame? Surely it is not the nicotine.
03-23-2003, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>. . .I guess when it all comes down to the facts, everyone is prewarned about the harmfulness of tobacco on the side of the pack. If one chooses to continue after that, who is to blame? Surely it is not the nicotine.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I know what you mean, but it seems as if you have the point backwards. You could blame the nicotine addiction after starting--but **everyone** knows that they shouldn't start.
Consider that you could replace "nicotine" with "alcohol", "heroin", "cocaine", "morphine", or any other addictive substance. With the exception of the last in the list being a choice, you could say that **everyone** knows they're all bad for you, but if you're addicted, do you blame yourself for using?--It's easy to say "yes", because there's still a choice, but addiction clouds reason. . . .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.