Metal Reviews

For felony charges only, not for lesser charges. And it also causes issues with you getting a job, which is probably the more substantial reason why people reoffend.

Nonsense, workers are paid based on the quality of their work, and the industry that they are set in can change what is paid at any given time. This is not a charity if you have an issue with it open your own company, as some actually sensible Marxist theorists have suggested worker run companies and make your own products. Also given the tendency for workers to unite in groups to barter for their "rights", this is another trend that is part of the human aspect of a free market how else do you explain the guilds of the early Middle ages, and the first part of the 20th century's early unions. People are not as stupid as you suggest, and unions can operate just fine in a free market without the aid of the virus of Marxism

Cute really. If anything you are part of the problem as Obama and neoconservatives like Romney were both inspired by you guessed right Marxists. The very roots of Neoconservatism is firmly rooted in Leftist philosophies , so you are nothing more than a product of the system that is causing the collapse of the US. So enjoy your free ride, there is no irony it just makes you look like a retard how you try to come across as a bleeding heart especially given the last sentence in that diatribe.

Unions in private companies are hardly an issue, especially given the fact I worked for a grocery store they are highly beneficial when dealing with a company that has familiarized itself with the process and has become an integral part of the business itself. To the extent that the workers effect sales remains to be seen, workers age, need to be replaced with fresh less familiar employees, and the nasty part of unions when they feel they haven't been given enough by the business. Small businesses are the ones hurt most by regulation, and guess who determines the course for industry standards because the state completely fucks up anything involved with the market the corporation who pays the politician who then like clockwork fucks up the working man to benefit the corporation, shareholders, and all of those based on unsound policy.

As for the free market being subject to "corruption" whatever the fuck that Marxist mumbojumbo means, it can only be so due to centralization, regulation, and the fact the state has to dip its greedy hands into profitable enterprise. You get a few rich corrupt greedy heads of multinational corporations to dip their capital into the Romney's, Daleys, and Obama's of the world and of course your'e going to get unfair labor practices, high unemployment, and the scourge of bailouts. They were seduced by the fact the state offered their industries protection to begin with, and thanks to your insane logic about regulations and federal oversight you made it all possible.

Take away the protections from state and local governments that subsidize the further growth of mulinational corporations, encourage your local businesses to lobby for less stringent regulation on themselves, and discourage the inherent government monopoly on industries such as insurance, building roads, education, government protectionism, and the government susibdizing other industries and you'll see a change in employment.

Neoconservatism's roots are in folks such as Leo Strauss who influenced Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington, who both have been directly cited by Paul Wolfowitz. This trajectory has nothing to do with Marxism. The historical genealogy that you are pointing to is non-existent. Zizek, Jameson, Brennan, and co. all take pot shots at these guys any chance they have. You might be thinking that insofar as Fukuyama is Hegelian that it might make him tied to Marx's Hegelianism, but he actually reads Hegel completely wrong since he learned his Hegel from a bad reading of Hegel from Kojeve. Marx's method comes from Phenomenology of Spirit while Fukuyama and Huntington rely on an end of history reading of Philosophy of Right.

And the workers can choose to not work based on being dissatisfied with such terms and conditions. The undemocratic moment of free markets is that the people on top can just dictate to the workers any conditions that they like. How is that democratic? Oh, wait I forgot, the West which values democracy so highly throws it out the window when it comes to the market. Worker run factories are a legitimate alternative. I encourage it. Some companies already are run by their employees, sometimes by benevolent CEOs, but what it really requires is one of two options; the workers seize the factory as in Naomi Klein's film, The Take, or as they did in Flint, MI in the 30s, or the workers have to be given the company by the state which happens more in South America where in a failing company is repossessed and handed over to people who can better manage it. The problem with saying "just do that if you want to, markets allow it" is that the conditions of the market barely allow workers to pay for their homes without them trying to find funds to pull together start up capital for a business. And that's where capital served its historical purpose, it is time to hand those companies over to the workers and cut off the parasitic top.

How the fuck did this become an argument about unions? I didn't mention unions once.

Capital becomes centralized, that is, monopolies develop. Before you know it, the heads of those monopolies have their hands up the state's ass, making it their puppet. This is all stuff Marx would agree with. And this is where I think you're wrong. You claim that "the state dips its hand hand into profitable enterprises". That's ass-backwards. If we look at Iraq, dudes from the private sector, for instance, Cheney, but he wasn't the only one, wanted a govt that they could use to enable larger profits. Ex-businessmen took over the state in order to manipulate policies that created them new revenue streams and hence profits. The state has built a revolving door for ex-corporate sector employees to become govt officials.

Centralization is a necessary outcome of capitalism. Companies compete, eventually companies lose. Regulation seeks to prevent that monopolistic control. The fact that you put both of those issues on the same evil side of the coin shows how distorted your position is. How do regulations such as anti-trust acts lead to the controlling power that MNCs have in terms of influencing the state? Ultimately, though, you have me misread if you think I give a fuck about regulations. I already know that shit isn't going to fall in my favor and it only enables capitalism to limp along, maintaining a human face while it protects capitalism from itself.

will respond when I'm running on less than three hours of sleep.

I tried to read this. Too many words. Gave up.

That can happen when these 2 really get into it.

This is the worst debate I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure to watch. The vice president is truly a moron and Paul Ryan is no better.

Wow. Obama just squeezed his entire plan for the economy in to two minutes in response to a question framed as an a college issue. It's cute how Obama acts as if tax reliefs will make up the deficit that companies lose in having jobs in America. American workers just can't be exploited to the degree that workers can be in third world countries.

Romney: Yo, that thing Obama just about me. It was wrong.

Look at Romney advocating affirmative action.

As if it matters which arsehole becomes grand poobah of the USA.

It matters quite a bit.

Warmongers, liars, and thieves the lot of them.

Nah. It really doesn't. If Obama has proven anything, it is that Democrats and Republicans have no difference in policies besides the fact that Democrats try to appear human in terms of supporting healthcare programs (that are too neutered to be any good), gay marriage (which isn't the biggest issue facing gays and actually does nothing for those who are struggling), and abortion (in a way that keeps from traumatizing women through draconian measures). Those are things worth fighting for, but whether Obama in the office changes what gets passed at the state level is questionable.

No. 1) I never said it mattered for Americans. It matters a lot for many countries in Europe, however. Take the UK, for example, where the governing parties model their policies on American neoliberalism. Obama's apparent priorities (no matter his actual priorities) could do a lot in influencing how this country is governed. Or take the Middle East- if Iran and Israel finally have a bust up, the whole world suffers from the economic consequences, and while both American parties seem to have the same view of things, the Democrats don't have quite as strong a lobby behind them as the Republicans do. I could go on.

No. 2) It matters for Americans anyway- if only those abroad. From Clinton to Bush to Obama Americans went from being respected, hated and derided, and then tentatively respected again. How do you think that would change with Romney?

1.) Neoliberalism has already been sent in motion and looking at Greece as an example where the US has played no part in the austerity, I don't think our policies are really necessary to have an example set. In fact, American neoliberalism is kinda an odd way of putting it. We don't manage ourselves as neoliberals, we impose neoliberals on others, e.g., Chile, Iraq, etc. Structural adjustments and shit you know?

2.) Do you really think the world's opinion of us matters an iota? Nobody here gives a fuck what you think of us. And I don't really think Romney being in office instead of Obama is really going to alter how terrorists perceive us either as seen in Libya and the other riots or whatever they were.

Mostly agreed here and I think the Romney "I'm tough on defense and you are weak" thing is just typical electioneering from the Republican party. But I also think Romney pushes for more (unnecessary) money on defense spending.

Which will probably give the facade of economic recovery so who could blame the douche?

Washingtonian consensus, yadda yadda yadda.