The 14 Worst Corporatations

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

but in that thread you told me to "get a grip, man" b/c i thought cheney pushed for the war for profit...then later you said "alert the town elders! of course war is fought for profit!" so i don't understand your reasoning...

Just because a war is fought for profit doesn't mean a war is fought for Dick Cheney's profit. That's my reasoning. You might try reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Dick_Cheney_ties

i know you never said it out loud that it was an 'innocent byproduct' but you claimed it in your post. you said cheney didn't go to war for profit and ppl will profit from war anyway...so that leads one ot believe that halliburton's stock going from $9 prewar to over $74 postwar as an innocent byproduct of what would've happened anyway...

I never claimed it in my post. I claimed that in a War, war-related service providers will profit. Does Halliburton make money from war? Sure. They're making money from this war, they made money from the Bosnia war, they made money from the Vietnam war. They also make money from peacekeeping operations in Haiti and elsewhere. Just because a company profits from a war doesn't mean that the company engineered the war.

Halliburton's profit is not "innocent". I would never claim that. It is the direct product of the need for their services and the government paying them. Haliiburton would never see a dime of my money if it wasn't for the government that forces me to pay them.

i disagree b/c the ones profiting are the ones pushing for the war.

I know. But you can't demonstrate that in the least bit. So then you hide behind the "education" label.

i wonder if you even read my posts, pops. the 'agenda' comment was refering to lockheed martin...if you would've read my post you would see someone said it's in lockheed martin's interests to profit from war. i said, as i'v stated several times, that when the profiteers are the main ones pushing for war then it seems like their agenda

I misunderstood that part of your post. I thought you were accusing me of having some hidden agenda. As for the section you were referring to:

"As the Center for Corporate Policy (http://www.corporatepolicy.org) notes, it is no coincidence that Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson--who helped draft the Republican foreign policy platform in 2000--is a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war."

I can understand how you like that. It's a nice sideways "proof" that requires no evidence. The "facts" presented above make no mention that Mr. Jackson, aside from being a VP at Lockheed has served in numerous governmental roles. It is not shocking that he played a part in PNAC.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

was it the american ppl going on tv saying they had 'bullet-proof evidence linking al-qaeda to iraq'?

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying 'the next warning sign could be a mushroom cloud?

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying iraq was 6 months away from having a nuke?

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying:
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain....Iraq has these weapons."

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security
of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl who said:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

Yes. I heard a number of American people say that.

was it the american ppl saying:
"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

No. It was the American ppl believing that.

was it the american ppl saying:
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

Yes. I heard that from many American people.

was it the american ppl saying:
"This is about imminent threat."

Yes. I heard that from many American people.

was it the american ppl saying:
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."

Yes. I heard that from many American people.

was it the american ppl saying:
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

Yes. I heard that from many American people.

was it the american ppl saying:
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

---

Yes. I heard that from many American people.

sorry, when i see the very ppl who profit from this war (and sure, someone has to profit, and honest profit is one thing, overcharging, charging for services never rendered...is entirely another) are the ones spreading misinfo like this to the american ppl then i see it differently than you do. so, in essence you are saying the fact that cheney's company and their friends profiting from wars based on these misconceptions were an innocent byproduct, no?

No.

farfromglorified

El_kabong,

There is an important lesson to be learned from these events. There is much good evidence that suggests that this administration ignored a lot of good intelligence that would have lead them to opposite conclusions. The suffering of this and the Iraqi nation is being caused, in large part, by those who feel that facts should fit conclusions, rather than the reverse. We would all be wise to learn how far the consequences of such a thought process can reach.

You want to characterize my statements as labeling Halliburton's profit as an "innocent byproducts". You forget that in my world there are no necessary evils. War profit is not innocent. But it is no where near as guilty as the blood money that pays for it.

-Jeff

miller8966

I like all these corporations especially caterpillar and coca-cola...i support corporate america

farfromglorified

miller8966 wrote:

I like all these corporations especially caterpillar and coca-cola...i support corporate america

You support corporations blindly:

miller8966 wrote:

I still support corporate america...hell i work for a corporation and they pay me well. SO i cant complain.

That's just as bad as damning them blindly.

miller8966

farfromglorified wrote:

You support corporations blindly:



That's just as bad as damning them blindly.

Wrong. The anti-americanism of that article is so cut and dry its unbelievable. But you liberal sheeple swallow it, hook line and sinker!

farfromglorified

miller8966 wrote:

Wrong. The anti-americanism of that article is so cut and dry its unbelievable. But you liberal sheeple swallow it, hook line and sinker!

Hehe...liberal sheep. I love it. Ask around.

angelica

Wow, farfromglorifed, I thought I get misunderstood a lot, but since I've come to know you and your presence out here, I realise you get misunderstood much more than I do. Either wing (left or right) thinks you are on the other side! It's cool, though, to me that although you claim you are conservative, you seem a little too realistic to be pigeonholed either way--you liberal sheep, you!!!?

(you do tend to hang out with those "left-wing" types an awful lot, though, don't you???)

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Wow, farfromglorifed, I thought I get misunderstood a lot, but since I've come to know you and your presence out here, I realise you get misunderstood much more than I do. Either wing (left or right) thinks you are on the other side! It's cool, though, to me that although you claim you are conservative, you seem a little too realistic to be pigeonholed either way--you liberal sheep, you!!!?

Defending the individual requires being one

(you do tend to hang out with those "left-wing" types an awful lot, though, don't you???)

I'm in training

onelongsong

angelica wrote:

Wow, farfromglorifed, I thought I get misunderstood a lot, but since I've come to know you and your presence out here, I realise you get misunderstood much more than I do. Either wing (left or right) thinks you are on the other side! It's cool, though, to me that although you claim you are conservative, you seem a little too realistic to be pigeonholed either way--you liberal sheep, you!!!?

(you do tend to hang out with those "left-wing" types an awful lot, though, don't you???)

i; myself; am not on either side. i've seperated myself from the rest of the world and live a free and happy life. however; i find it interesting how this thread turned into a war thread. believe it or not; many corporations have no impact on the war and the war has no impact on them.
i use both wings to fly. the left wing is wrong half the time; as the right wing is wrong half the time. one must seek balance and be open to both points of view.

angelica

onelongsong wrote:

i use both wings to fly. the left wing is wrong half the time; as the right wing is wrong half the time. one must seek balance and be open to both points of view.

I totally agree with this. It's only with both wings and balance that we can soar. I'm also a fan of living in the world but not being so much "of" the world. I'm a bit separated myself, although it's not by distance, but by my mindset and imagination--there is a real freedom to be found in "inner space".

onelongsong

angelica wrote:

I totally agree with this. It's only with both wings and balance that we can soar. I'm also a fan of living in the world but not being so much "of" the world. I'm a bit separated myself, although it's not by distance, but by my mindset and imagination--there is a real freedom to be found in "inner space".

i moved away from civilization. i use solar power and provide my own food. "inner space" has provided "inner peace". i sell buffalo meat to the public and will incorporate just before i open my website. for protection and tax purposes mostly. corporations are not bad. once again it's the people who run them. man is the earths ONLY enemy.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok...care to provide a single piece of causal evidence that can link these 14 corporations to "pushing the idea that their security was in jeopardy"??? How would respond if I claimed that the labor unions were doing this??? Hopefully you'd ask for the same evidence.

I never said all of these particular corporations were linked to war profiteering. I think the answer is obvious if a corporation is contributing heavily to one's campaign and then hit paydirt once he's in office with a needless war based on lies no less, in which they recieve no bid contracts. It's not enough for you, I guess....a world full of coincidences seems more unlikely to me. There's not always gonna be some smoking gun we can all point to...doesn't take away fomr the point though.

farfromglorified wrote:

The facts are not there. Only a few of them are. Especially chosen for the purpose. How would you respond if I posted an article called "The 14 Best Corporate Angels" and never mentioned anything about labor problems, greed, or war profitteering? Would you allow me to hind behind "the facts are there"??? I would hope not.

Well this is a discussion. If you have more facts that I'm not seeing or amunaware of feel free to show them to me. Just because I didn't include every piece of information out there on these corporations doesn't take away from the facts I did post so no, I don't see it as half assed at all. I am not trying to purposely hide anything about these companies. I'm sure they must do some good sometimes but I highly doubt it will out weigh the harm they cause. Once again if you have information to point otherwise, please do share it with us.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I never said all of these particular corporations were linked to war profiteering. I think the answer is obvious if a corporation is contributing heavily to one's campaign and then hit paydirt once he's in office with a needless war based on lies no less, in which they recieve no bid contracts.

That, to you, is proof? Ok. Do you believe then that Halliburton was behind the Bosnia mission? They received no-bid contracts then, and contributed directly to both Clinton and many members of Congress. Was Fluor Corp responsible for Hurrican Katrina? They received a no-bid contract as well.

It's not enough for you, I guess....a world full of coincidences seems more unlikely to me. There's not always gonna be some smoking gun we can all point to...doesn't take away fomr the point though.

I'm not suggesting "a world full of coincidences". It is not a coincidence that an established government contractor who has executed this exact type work receives a no-bid extension on an existing contract. I don't agree with the approach, but it's not new, shocking, or unique to this administration.

Well this is a discussion. If you have more facts that I'm not seeing or amunaware of feel free to show them to me. Just because I didn't include every piece of information out there on these corporations doesn't take away from the facts I did post so no, I don't see it as half assed at all. I am not trying to purposely hide anything about these companies. I'm sure they must do some good sometimes but I highly doubt it will out weigh the harm they cause. Once again if you have information to point otherwise, please do share it with us.

I'd be happy to share some facts, if you're genuinely interested in hearing them. But when you say this: "I'm sure they must do some good sometimes but I highly doubt it will out weigh the harm they cause", it tells me you have no genuine interest. If you can explain how you arrived at that conclusion, I'll happily share some facts of interest.

Skitch Patterson

This is truely a one sided list.

Ford does have a mediocre enviromental record- and are working to correct it... and i believe (i could be wrong on this one, but i dont think so) EVERY auto company was a part of the coalition mentioned against changing the laws.


however, this evil corporation also has amoung the best health care benefits for its entire workforce (union and otherwise)... AND also extends equal benefits to those involved in Same Sex Domestic Partnerships.... It also was willing to alienate many of its dealers wishes (and many of its most loyal customers) and respond to the American Family Associations boycotts by INCREASING its presence in the gay community.

but i suppose those things need to be over looked in order to paint them as one of the "worst corporations"

Abookamongstthemany

Skitch Patterson wrote:

This is truely a one sided list.

Ford does have a mediocre enviromental record- and are working to correct it... and i believe (i could be wrong on this one, but i dont think so) EVERY auto company was a part of the coalition mentioned against changing the laws.


however, this evil corporation also has amoung the best health care benefits for its entire workforce (union and otherwise)... AND also extends equal benefits to those involved in Same Sex Domestic Partnerships.... It also was willing to alienate many of its dealers wishes (and many of its most loyal customers) and respond to the American Family Associations boycotts by INCREASING its presence in the gay community.

but i suppose those things need to be over looked in order to paint them as one of the "worst corporations"

Thank you. I would say if your big on the environment then the bad out weights the good. But if that's not the biggest concern then I can understand supporting them still.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

That, to you, is proof? Ok. Do you believe then that Halliburton was behind the Bosnia mission? They received no-bid contracts then, and contributed directly to both Clinton and many members of Congress. Was Fluor Corp responsible for Hurrican Katrina? They received a no-bid contract as well.



I'm not suggesting "a world full of coincidences". It is not a coincidence that an established government contractor who has executed this exact type work receives a no-bid extension on an existing contract. I don't agree with the approach, but it's not new, shocking, or unique to this administration.



I'd be happy to share some facts, if you're genuinely interested in hearing them. But when you say this: "I'm sure they must do some good sometimes but I highly doubt it will out weigh the harm they cause", it tells me you have no genuine interest. If you can explain how you arrived at that conclusion, I'll happily share some facts of interest.

Of course I do...having a high amount of doubt doesn't equal no genuine interest, it only means I'm doubtful.

know1

El_Kabong wrote:

b/c you being against all wars has nothing to do w/ you saying profit doesn't motivate them

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3468507&postcount=6

then for a while you refused to address the topic of the post and instead made personal attacks

I'm done with you. You either can't read/understand at all, or you are simply baiting people. The post you reference above doesn't remotely anything close to what you implied I said in this thread.

Secondly, the personal attacks weren't in that thread, but that thread is a good example of why they were needed. You titled the thread to make it seem that it was about the CEO, and then when someone was confused by that, you mentioned that the article didn't really express your opinion accurately..and THAT was the whole point I was trying to make about you just posting a bunch of links with no comment.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Of course I do...having a high amount of doubt doesn't equal no genuine interest, it only means I'm doubtful.

Abook, my question is a simple one: where does the doubt come from? How did you arrive at the conclusion that these companies do more harm than good?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Abook, my question is a simple one: where does the doubt come from? How did you arrive at the conclusion that these companies do more harm than good?

Things that I have read and seen about them of course.

Here's a teaser for an interesting looking doc on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp1CZzv8gJo

this has some interest bits of info and stats in it as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWE_dy1bYY

If you have something I need to know about these guys, please share it, I'm all ears.