"Outfoxed" Propagandists Smear Walmart

[aquapub]

The socialist maker of the debunked liberal propaganda flic, "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald, has joined forces with several labor unions (i.e., mafias), led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and set his sites on Wal-mart, a sensible target for anyone bent on punishing success.

In it...

1) they tell the story of Tod Hunter, a small businessman who had operated a Mom and Pop place called, "H&H Hardware" since 1962. The movie talks about him being put out of business by the arrival of Wal-Mart. The only problem with this is that he went out of business 3 months before Wal-Mart came to his town. In an interview with Byron York, he said openly that his bankruptcy had nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Like Michael Moore, Like Outfoxed, they never let the facts get in the way.

2) they use labor union-funded (hence, biased as Hell) "studies" showing that Wal-Mart drives down wages, but never mentioned how that evens out with the dramatically increased buying power of the consumer that they create.

3) they even resorted (as in their other hack films) to demonizing Wal-Mart over irrelevant crap like their parking lot security!?!??!:roll: They claimed that Wal-Mart has a lot more crime occur in their parking lots, but they fail to mention that Wal-Mart has 100 million customers a week- way more than anyone else....more people, more crime....it's a statistical guarantee.

This film is a joke and Greenwald needs to be exposed for the coniving, deceptive worm he is.

 

[Deegan]

The socialist maker of the debunked liberal propaganda flic, "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald, has joined forces with several labor unions (i.e., mafias), led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and set his sites on Wal-mart, a sensible target for anyone bent on punishing success.

In it...

1) they tell the story of Tod Hunter, a small businessman who had operated a Mom and Pop place called, "H&H Hardware" since 1962. The movie talks about him being put out of business by the arrival of Wal-Mart. The only problem with this is that he went out of business 3 months before Wal-Mart came to his town. In an interview with Byron York, he said openly that his bankruptcy had nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Like Michael Moore, Like Outfoxed, they never let the facts get in the way.

2) they use labor union-funded (hence, biased as Hell) "studies" showing that Wal-Mart drives down wages, but never mentioned how that evens out with the dramatically increased buying power of the consumer that they create.

3) they even resorted (as in their other hack films) to demonizing Wal-Mart over irrelevant crap like their parking lot security!?!??!:roll: They claimed that Wal-Mart has a lot more crime occur in their parking lots, but they fail to mention that Wal-Mart has 100 million customers a week- way more than anyone else....more people, more crime....it's a statistical guarantee.

This film is a joke and Greenwald needs to be exposed for the coniving, deceptive worm he is.

And who is there to step in and help.......our good friend Teddy Kennedy, what a surprise huh?:roll:

 

[hipsterdufus]

The socialist maker of the debunked liberal propaganda flic, "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald, has joined forces with several labor unions (i.e., mafias), led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and set his sites on Wal-mart, a sensible target for anyone bent on punishing success.

In it...

1) they tell the story of Tod Hunter, a small businessman who had operated a Mom and Pop place called, "H&H Hardware" since 1962.

I'll be going to see the new Walmart movie with about 150 people in at a local church on Friday, I'll give you a report. My family has boycotted Mal-Wart for the past five years. I think they're terrible for America, and I would be happy to get into in another thread.

Briefly my case against Mal-Wart is:
low wages : average pay is 9.26 an hour
workers on Medicare (often taxpayers pay for their healthcare)
outsourcing American jobs to China
putting the "Made In USA" label on products from people in forced labor and forced prostitution camps in Saipan. Mal-Wart isn't the only co. that does this


Do you have a link for your Tod Hunter story?
BTW- I'm still waiting to hear what "Academic Award" you won for you paper on the media.

If you want to talk about propoganda see below:

 

[debate_junkie]

I'll be going to see the new Walmart movie with about 150 people in at a local church on Friday, I'll give you a report. My family has boycotted Mal-Wart for the past five years. I think they're terrible for America, and I would be happy to get into in another thread.

Briefly my case against Mal-Wart is:
low wages : average pay is 9.26 an hour
workers on Medicare (often taxpayers pay for their healthcare)
outsourcing American jobs to China
putting the "Made In USA" label on products from people in forced labor and forced prostitution camps in Saipan. Mal-Wart isn't the only co. that does this


Do you have a link for your Tod Hunter story?
BTW- I'm still waiting to hear what "Academic Award" you won for you paper on the media.

If you want to talk about propoganda see below:

Success is terrible for America. Newsflash... New Walmart put up in Ephrata PA in roughly 2000. Numerous signs outside peoples houses, numerous people at board meetings denouncing Wal-Mart.... flash forward a year or 2, some of these SAME people that "think Wal-Mart is bad for America" were shopping there.

average wage 9.26 an hour? and that's bad, how? Hell I work for the state of PA, and at the moment my salary translates into 8.57 an hour. They're far above min wage... so what's the gripe there?

Medicare? Well I don't know about your wal-mart, but alot of senior citizens work for Wal-Mart here. And as far as healthcare goes... again.. I work for the state and am receiving not a LICK of health insurance, and won't see it for at least 6 months.... until my probation ends.

Outsourcing? Hmmm what do AOL and Earthlink have in common? Technical support that has drifted over to.. yep, you guessed it.. India. but I digress, again Wal-Mart MUST be evil.

Well, why should Walmart be blamed for China? Hell, almost 75% of American flags seen around the 4th of July are made where.. in China? It's Walmart's fault that China is capitalizing on our own stupidity? It's Walmart's fault that globalizing the market, though good in many instances, has created this "cheap" labor fetish, only exasperated by corporate welfare. Walmart doesn't look to the federal and state governments to bail them out, now do they?

Hmmm.... and for your last point... forced prostitution camps and all.. I have 3 words for you...Kathy Lee Gifford. I have yet to see conclusive proof that Walmart uses labor in these horrendous condition. Hmm, I do recall the same charge getting levied against Nike, too, when they got rich(er) by selling Air Jordan's.

 

[Archon]

Hmm, I do recall the same charge getting levied against Nike, too, when they got rich(er) by selling Air Jordan's.

If only China could be as agglutinated as Taiwan in their quest for capital.... errr.. not quite.

Nike : Made in Taiwan. Capital Bondage? Democracy? Greed. Oh gee I'm so confused? :2wave:

 

[hipsterdufus]

I just got back from a screening at a local church of the new "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" Movie.

They were expecting 150 people and 300 showed up. It's a very powerful movie made up mostly of interviews of current and former Walmart employees including many republicans as well as workers in China and Bangladesh.

I've heard most of the stories before:

1. Corporate welfare for Walmart: - huge tax subsidies- local governments bend over backwards to get Walmarts, Walmarts move to another location when cities are about to reap the benefits of their land value, taxpayers pay for employees Medicare and WIC benefits etc. etc.

2. Low wages- the average worker gets 8 or 9 dollars an hour. A full time worker at Walmart earning their average salary is considered to be below the poverty line by American standards.

3. Forced overtime without pay

4. Sex discrimination against women

5. Racism

6. Union busting

7. Environmental atrocities - Walmart leaving toxic fertilzers uncontained in parking lots that feed into cities water supplies

8. Walmart's effects on small business when moving into towns (they close)
The Walton Families lack of charitable contributions

You also get a chance to see Walmart workers in China working for $.13 an hour, 13 hour shifts to make those cheap clothes.

The movie also shows the numerous cities and towns that fought back (in Red states mostly) to keep Walmart out of their towns and won.

I've thought for years that WalMart is anti-American - this movie confirms it and I urge every American to go see it.

You can find a screening here.

http://www.walmartmovie.com/find.php

 

[hipsterdufus]

Last year, Wal-Mart posted $10 billion in profits. Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.5 billion to cover Medicaid costs for Wal-Mart employees and their families.

Your tax dollars are boosting Wal-Mart profits. Wal-Mart is the nation's biggest welfare recipient and a corporate parasite.

 

[ngdawg]

Personally, as a store, I don't care too much for the Walmart here-it's run like an open market in a 3rd world country. Low wages? I work at Kohl's for $7.25 an hour and NO overtime at all-not allowed. Racist? A good 90% of the Walmart workers I've seen in several in this state are black, Indian/Pakistani and Hispanic. Clothes and items made in China for cheap labor? Check the labels on your clothes-unless you make a point to only buy 'Made in America' labelled items, doesn't matter where you bought it-a $500 coat has as much chance as being made by cheap Asian labor as that $39 one at Walmart.
Charity? The store here does plenty: school support, charity drives, etc. Being it's a chain, it would be assumed they're approved at corporate.
Running out small business? Like Sears, Target, Megamalls haven't?
Environmental atrocities? Home Depot does the same thing. Chemical companies do the same thing.
Sex Discrimination? Most of the people that work there are women, don't know about the corporate level, though.
As for Union busting- I have worked in unions, including this state's teacher's union and if Walmart is paying $8-9 an hour, their employes are getting the better deal. My union jobs were, until this one at Kohl's, the lowest-paid jobs I had, then they have the nerve to make sure you get union dues taken-you have no choice.
The movie, only as you described it, sounds biased, and very Michael Moore-inspired. Seems you could put any one of a dozen chain stores in there and get the same results.

 

[Red_Dave]

The socialist maker of the debunked liberal propaganda flic, "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald, has joined forces with several labor unions (i.e., mafias), led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and set his sites on Wal-mart, a sensible target for anyone bent on punishing success.

In it...

1) they tell the story of Tod Hunter, a small businessman who had operated a Mom and Pop place called, "H&H Hardware" since 1962. The movie talks about him being put out of business by the arrival of Wal-Mart. The only problem with this is that he went out of business 3 months before Wal-Mart came to his town. In an interview with Byron York, he said openly that his bankruptcy had nothing to do with Wal-Mart. Like Michael Moore, Like Outfoxed, they never let the facts get in the way.

2) they use labor union-funded (hence, biased as Hell) "studies" showing that Wal-Mart drives down wages, but never mentioned how that evens out with the dramatically increased buying power of the consumer that they create.

3) they even resorted (as in their other hack films) to demonizing Wal-Mart over irrelevant crap like their parking lot security!?!??!:roll: They claimed that Wal-Mart has a lot more crime occur in their parking lots, but they fail to mention that Wal-Mart has 100 million customers a week- way more than anyone else....more people, more crime....it's a statistical guarantee.

This film is a joke and Greenwald needs to be exposed for the coniving, deceptive worm he is.

just out of curioisity did you hear that on fox?

 

[Comrade Brian]

2) they use labor union-funded (hence, biased as Hell) "studies" showing that Wal-Mart drives down wages, but never mentioned how that evens out with the dramatically increased buying power of the consumer that they create.

Actually this part is right, Wal-Mart drives down wages to:

1. less wages to pay, less costs.

2. Since Wal-Mart has such low prices and sells almost anything, employees are pretty much forced to buy there, thus creating more profits. What you pay your employees, you get back, plus their labor.

 

[Comrade Brian]

The socialist maker of the debunked liberal propaganda flic, "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald, has joined forces with several labor unions (i.e., mafias), led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and set his sites on Wal-mart, a sensible target for anyone bent on punishing success.

1. Socialists and liberals are against each other, not helping each other out as most people believe.

2. I wasn't aware unions were mafias.

3. Why would they punish "success" as you call it?

4. Labor unions help make sure businesses stop unfair practices, class warfare, workers join unions to keep businesses in check, thus businesses respond with union-busting. Though lately unions haven't been faring so well since the government is more favorible to business.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Personally, as a store, I don't care too much for the Walmart here-it's run like an open market in a 3rd world country. Low wages? I work at Kohl's for $7.25 an hour and NO overtime at all-not allowed. Racist? A good 90% of the Walmart workers I've seen in several in this state are black, Indian/Pakistani and Hispanic. Clothes and items made in China for cheap labor? Check the labels on your clothes-unless you make a point to only buy 'Made in America' labelled items, doesn't matter where you bought it-a $500 coat has as much chance as being made by cheap Asian labor as that $39 one at Walmart.
Charity? The store here does plenty: school support, charity drives, etc. Being it's a chain, it would be assumed they're approved at corporate.
Running out small business? Like Sears, Target, Megamalls haven't?
Environmental atrocities? Home Depot does the same thing. Chemical companies do the same thing.
Sex Discrimination? Most of the people that work there are women, don't know about the corporate level, though.
As for Union busting- I have worked in unions, including this state's teacher's union and if Walmart is paying $8-9 an hour, their employes are getting the better deal. My union jobs were, until this one at Kohl's, the lowest-paid jobs I had, then they have the nerve to make sure you get union dues taken-you have no choice.
The movie, only as you described it, sounds biased, and very Michael Moore-inspired. Seems you could put any one of a dozen chain stores in there and get the same results.

Dawg,

I'm sorry your job sucks too. Walmart is the role model to which the rest of the big boxes model their companies on. Of course they're not the only one, but Walmart is the biggest and by far the worst offender.

I recommend you see the movie before tearing it apart. It's usually playing for free. So far there have been over 7000 "house parties" showing the movie.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Last year, Wal-Mart posted $10 billion in profits. Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.5 billion to cover Medicaid costs for Wal-Mart employees and their families.

Your tax dollars are boosting Wal-Mart profits. Wal-Mart is the nation's biggest welfare recipient and a corporate parasite.

Yes, unfortunatly corporate welfare will not change until new social and economic systems are put in place i.e. socialism.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Did anyone see the video of Walmart shoppers stampeding over one and other on Black Friday? One lady lost her wig. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

 

[akyron]

Did anyone see the video of Walmart shoppers stampeding over one and other on Black Friday? One lady lost her wig. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

Yes. The spirit of the holiday is apparent indeed.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yes. The spirit of the holiday is apparent indeed.

Deck the halls, let's head for the malls. Fa la la la la, la la la la:mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

"Many neo-cons say that Liberal Democrats are “soft” on National Security. 4 years after Pearl Harbor, we Liberal Democrats had the troops patroling both downtown Tokyo and Berlin. We took down two fascist empires on both sides of the World!

More than 4 years after 9/11, the conservatives can’t take down one, crazy terrorist on a mule, attached to a dialysis machine in the mountains of Afganistan!
Great work- team Bush! "

Hipsterdufus



Three really obvious flaws with that weak-ass attack:

1) Hitler was an easy no-brainer Disney Villain. FDR only had to fight Hitler and Hirohito, not Hitler, Hirohito and a whole chorus of traitors screaming that Hitler was just a misunderstood victim like Bush has to deal with from Democrats like you. Hitler wasn't hiding from the U.S. somewhere in the most vast network of cave tunnels ever created doing sneak attacks. He was a visible enemy.

2) The fact that you have to go that far back to find something a liberal did that required any sort of guts speaks for itself.

3) The Patriot Act, Missile defense development, military funding, etc., etc., etc. Liberals are against EVERYTHING anyone tries to do to defend this country. And there's always a BS reason: Roving wire taps violate the fictional privacy rights of terrorists so the Patriot Act is fascism; we could be spending billions to punish corporations for existing, pamper deadbeats, and socialize medicine, now (or any time) is not the time to fund any military spending.

Bill Clinton created Bin Laden by retreating from him in Somalia, let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade, he appeased North Korea, allowing them to go nuclear, and he did nothing about Saddam.

Yeah, you're right, liberals aren't soft on national security, they just side with every enemy this nation has and ALWAYS fight to tie our military's hands because it's the ethical thing to do. :roll:

Give me a break.

 

[hipsterdufus]

"Many neo-cons say that Liberal Democrats are “soft” on National Security. 4 years after Pearl Harbor, we Liberal Democrats had the troops patroling both downtown Tokyo and Berlin. We took down two fascist empires on both sides of the World!

More than 4 years after 9/11, the conservatives can’t take down one, crazy terrorist on a mule, attached to a dialysis machine in the mountains of Afganistan!
Great work- team Bush! "

Hipsterdufus



Three really obvious flaws with that weak-ass attack:

1) Hitler was an easy no-brainer Disney Villain. FDR only had to fight Hitler and Hirohito, not Hitler, Hirohito and a whole chorus of traitors screaming that Hitler was just a misunderstood victim like Bush has to deal with from Democrats like you. Hitler wasn't hiding from the U.S. somewhere in the most vast network of cave tunnels ever created doing sneak attacks. He was a visible enemy.

2) The fact that you have to go that far back to find something a liberal did that required any sort of guts speaks for itself.

3) The Patriot Act, Missile defense development, military funding, etc., etc., etc. Liberals are against EVERYTHING anyone tries to do to defend this country. And there's always a BS reason: Roving wire taps violate the fictional privacy rights of terrorists so the Patriot Act is fascism; we could be spending billions to punish corporations for existing, pamper deadbeats, and socialize medicine, now (or any time) is not the time to fund any military spending.

Bill Clinton created Bin Laden by retreating from him in Somalia, let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade, he appeased North Korea, allowing them to go nuclear, and he did nothing about Saddam.

Yeah, you're right, liberals aren't soft on national security, they just side with every enemy this nation has and ALWAYS fight to tie our military's hands because it's the ethical thing to do. :roll:

Give me a break.

The sense of history in America is amazing! Part of the problem is our country is so young, 40 years seems like a long time ago.

The Republicans fought Clinton every step of the way on the changes he made and wanted to make to shore up our security, including giving more wiretap powers to the CIA. Newt and the republicans were out front fighting Clinton on this, and every othrer, issue.

BTW - The first WTC bombing was 30-some days into Clinton's first term. Did the liberals blame Bush 41? No

How many times did Bush 41 mention terrorism in his state of the Union Addresses? Once - in relationship to Saddamms environmental terrorism of blowing up oil wells.

 

[aquapub]

The sense of history in America is amazing! Part of the problem is our country is so young, 40 years seems like a long time ago.

The Republicans fought Clinton every step of the way on the changes he made and wanted to make to shore up our security, including giving more wiretap powers to the CIA. Newt and the republicans were out front fighting Clinton on this, and every othrer, issue.

BTW - The first WTC bombing was 30-some days into Clinton's first term. Did the liberals blame Bush 41? No

How many times did Bush 41 mention terrorism in his state of the Union Addresses? Once - in relationship to Saddamms environmental terrorism of blowing up oil wells.

There is a reason this "pot calling the kettle black" BS about NEWT opposing CLINTON'S fictional national security efforts came with no specifics....It is a total fabrication. You have completely dissolved what little credibility you use to have in here. Nothing like that ever happened. You need to get better at lying through your teeth or go home.

REPUBLICANS were the ones calling on CLINTON to stop letting Janet Reno make asinine policies like the ones that kept the CIA from being able to talk to the FBI.

Clinton RESISTED REPUBLICANS when they called on him to stop treating Bin Laden like a criminal and start treating him like an enemy.

And YOUR account of history is what's so sorely lacking here. Clinton MADE Bin Laden what he was by retreating from him in Somalia. Bin Laden has said this repeatedly in interviews. THEN Bin Laden attacked the WTC and Clinton continued to treat it as a criminal matter, prosecuting the individual cell while doing zip about the organization.

Clinton let Bin Laden attack us over and over and over for nearly a decade. Bush senior let Al Queda get away with attacking us zero times. THIS is why Clinton is blamed for 9/11 instead of the people who had nothing to do with it.

If you Democrats had any actual facts or arguments to defend your inexcusably treasonous negligence on national security, perhaps you wouldn't have to resort to outrageously lying like hipsterdufus has here.

 

[Stinger]

Last year, Wal-Mart posted $10 billion in profits. Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.5 billion to cover Medicaid costs for Wal-Mart employees and their families.

Your tax dollars are boosting Wal-Mart profits. Wal-Mart is the nation's biggest welfare recipient and a corporate parasite.

Posted $10 billion profit on what sales? Just saying they posted $10 billion is a worthless statement. Wal-Mart also offers health insurance, mu daughter worked there and had it.

From Wal-Mart http://www.walmartfacts.com/associates/default.aspx#a42

"
Health care. As of today, 620,000 associates have signed up for health insurance coverage in a Wal-Mart sponsored plan. Unlike many plans, after the first year, Wal-Mart’s Associates’ Medical Plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. In January, Wal-Mart will provide insurance to more than 1 million people and offer up to 18 different plans. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.
Access to world-class health care. While many other companies have passed on increased medical costs to their employees by decreasing their company contributor percentage, historically, the percentage of total contributions made by Wal-Mart to company medical plans has remained consistent or risen. Associates enrolled in the plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities without insurance referral."


That some choose to go on Medicare instead seems to me to be a government problem NOT a Wal-Mart problem.

 

[Stinger]

Briefly my case against Mal-Wart is:
low wages : average pay is 9.26 an hour

Wal-Mart responds: Competitive pay and benefits. The majority of Wal-Mart's hourly store associates in the United States work full-time. That's well above the 20 - 40 percent typically found in the retail industry. Wal-Mart’s average full-time hourly wage nationally is $9.68 an hour, higher in urban areas. For example: Chicago, $10.69; Austin, TX, $10.69; Washington D.C./Baltimore, $10.08; Atlanta, $10.80; and in Los Angeles, $9.99.

workers on Medicare (often taxpayers pay for their healthcare)

Wal-Mart responds:Health care. As of today, 620,000 associates have signed up for health insurance coverage in a Wal-Mart sponsored plan. Unlike many plans, after the first year, Wal-Mart’s Associates’ Medical Plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. In January, Wal-Mart will provide insurance to more than 1 million people and offer up to 18 different plans. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

outsourcing American jobs to China

They don't outsource anything, they don't manufacture anything. But if you can produce it here and sell it at a comptetive price to Wal-Mart then do so. You are perfectly free to manufacture and sell to Wal-Mart. You are also free to purchase only American made goods. Which I doubt you do because of the cost of those products.

putting the "Made In USA" label on products from people in forced labor and forced prostitution camps in Saipan. Mal-Wart isn't the only co. that does this

If they are doing so they should be prosecuted for frauc. If they are I am sure they would be because there are many local DA who would love to do so for their own political gain.


It is also a fallacy that they drive business away. Go by any Wal-Mart and what you see is business growth. Store owners stive to get near them because of the traffic they bring in. And anyone with quality products and service can compete with Wal-Mart. There are lots of things I don't buy at Wal-Mart because I want a better product not a cheaper price.


Link to the above cites: http://www.walmartfacts.com/associates/default.aspx#a42

 

[hipsterdufus]

There is a reason this "pot calling the kettle black" BS about NEWT opposing CLINTON'S fictional national security efforts came with no specifics....It is a total fabrication. You have completely dissolved what little credibility you use to have in here. Nothing like that ever happened. You need to get better at lying through your teeth or go home. REPUBLICANS were the ones calling on CLINTON to stop letting Janet Reno make asinine policies like the ones that kept the CIA from being able to talk to the FBI.

Well my boy - me thinks thee doth protest too much! It seems like you have been studying revisionist history. Here are the facts- The Republicans opposed anti-terrorism measures put forth by Clinton three consecutive years. Gingrich was more interested in partisan politics than national security. Clinton put more effort into counter terrorism than all previous administrations combined.

The Anti-Terrorism Bill Revisited
December 25, 1995

For the third time in as many years, the effort to pass an anti-terrorism bill has stalled in Congress. The 1995 version of the anti-terrorism legislation was initially introduced by the Clinton Administration as a part of its effort to counter what they described as domestic U.S. support for foreign terrorist activities. The Administration's bill included proposals to: ban all U.S. fundraising for groups defined by the President as "terrorist;" deny visas to individuals identified with any such "terrorist" group; and allow for the use of secret evidence in extradition trials of individuals accused of membership in those organizations.

http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch_archives/122595.htm

(1) CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS PROPOSE SWEEPING ANTI-TERRORISM
INITIATIVES

In the wake of the recent bombing at the Olympics and the suspected
terrorist involvement in the TWA crash, the Clinton Administration and
members of Congress are proposing a set of sweeping counter-terrorism
initiatives. If enacted into law, these proposals will dramatically
increase law enforcement surveillance authority over the Internet and other
advanced communications technologies. An outline of the Administration's
proposal was circulated on Capitol Hill on Monday July 29.

President Clinton has urged Congress to pass new counter-terrorism
legislation before the Congressional recess at the end of this week. While
several prominent Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), have said publicly that Congress should not rush into any new counter-terrorism legislation, most observers believe there is astrong possibility that some or all of the Administration's proposal will
be enacted before the August recess.

MAJOR POINTS OF THE COUNTER-TERRORISM PROPOSALS CIRCULATING ON THE HILL

The administration's new counter-terrorism initiative and other amendments
circulating this week in Congress contain numerous provisions, but four
are of particular concern to the net.community:

* New Threats to Encryption, Opposition to the Pro-CODE Bill
* Funding for Digital Telephony Without Public Accountability
* Amendment to Criminalize 'Bomb-Making' Information on the Internet
* Expanded Authority for Multi-Point, "Roving" Wiretaps

The full text of the Administration's proposal and background information
are available at CDT's counter-terrorism Web Page:

MAJOR POINTS OF THE COUNTER-TERRORISM PROPOSALS CIRCULATING ON THE HILL

The administration's new counter-terrorism initiative and other amendments
circulating this week in Congress contain numerous provisions, but four
are of particular concern to the net.community:

* New Threats to Encryption, Opposition to the Pro-CODE Bill
* Funding for Digital Telephony Without Public Accountability
* Amendment to Criminalize 'Bomb-Making' Information on the Internet
* Expanded Authority for Multi-Point, "Roving" Wiretaps

The full text of the Administration's proposal and background information
are available at CDT's counter-terrorism Web Page:

http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_2.29.html

Aquapub Clinton RESISTED REPUBLICANS when they called on him to stop treating Bin Laden like a criminal and start treating him like an enemy.

I agree with you on this point - but to me it points to the problem that we are only now beginning to remedy - the CIA & FBI can't talk to each other. This is one of the reasons the Dept. of Homeland Security was formed. G W Bush resisted that from day one too.

Bear in mind that in WTC1 - 38 days after Clinton took office - he had the perps arrested and put in jail. You can go visit them if you like. I hear they love company :mrgreen:

Clinton did not want the country to live in total fear of terror and chose to take a low-key approach to his efforts but you can't deny that:

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He ordered a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie, Wag The Dog, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column101d.html

 

[hipsterdufus]

Stinger - Tell me the truth - you work for Wal-mart right?
The figures you quote just emphasize what a terrible employer Wal-mart is.

Wal-Mart responds: Competitive pay and benefits. The majority of Wal-Mart's hourly store associates in the United States work full-time. That's well above the 20 - 40 percent typically found in the retail industry. Wal-Mart’s average full-time hourly wage nationally is $9.68 an hour, higher in urban areas. For example: Chicago, $10.69; Austin, TX, $10.69; Washington D.C./Baltimore, $10.08; Atlanta, $10.80; and in Los Angeles, $9.99.

Do you think $10 an hour is a living wage? Even with those numbers - employees would still be eligible for governmet assistance and be considered below the poverty line! Wal-mart also is in litigation for forcing workers to work off the clock to avoid paying overtime.

Wal-Mart responds:Health care. As of today, 620,000 associates have signed up for health insurance coverage in a Wal-Mart sponsored plan. Unlike many plans, after the first year, Wal-Mart’s Associates’ Medical Plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. In January, Wal-Mart will provide insurance to more than 1 million people and offer up to 18 different plans. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

On the issue of healthcare - look at the following:

Wal-Mart’s health care coverage is well below the national average


High premiums and deductibles keep more than half of Wal-Mart workers from participating in the company health plan. While the national average of workers covered by employer health insurance is 67 percent, only about 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are covered by the company’s health care plan.
Majority of Wal-Mart employees can’t afford company health care

The average worker would have to pay one fifth of his paycheck for health care coverage at Wal-Mart. On a wage of about $8 an hour and 29-32 hours of work a week, many workers must rely on state programs or family members or simply live without health insurance.
Employees must pay $218 per month for family health care coverage from Wal-Mart.
In Wal-Mart's employee health plan, deductibles range from $350 to as high as $3,000 for family coverage.

http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_acti..._info/facts_and_figures/walmartonbenefits.cfm

They don't outsource anything, they don't manufacture anything. But if you can produce it here and sell it at a comptetive price to Wal-Mart then do so. You are perfectly free to manufacture and sell to Wal-Mart. You are also free to purchase only American made goods. Which I doubt you do because of the cost of those products.

Wal-mart forces American companies to compete with nations that pay their workers $1.00 a day. How are American workers supposed to compete with that?

If they are doing so they should be prosecuted for frauc. If they are I am sure they would be because there are many local DA who would love to do so for their own political gain.

Who is going to prosecute them? Tom Delay went to Saipan and guaranteed that no action would be taken against the managers of the forced labor/prostiturion camps. Saipan is outside the jurisdiction of American law.
Wal-mart is not the only one taking advantage of these teenagers.

Pregnant garment workers on Saipan are forced to have abortions to keep their jobs.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/saipan/abc040100.html

It is also a fallacy that they drive business away. Go by any Wal-Mart and what you see is business growth. Store owners stive to get near them because of the traffic they bring in. And anyone with quality products and service can compete with Wal-Mart. There are lots of things I don't buy at Wal-Mart because I want a better product not a cheaper price.

Of course you have no statistics to back that up.

In October 2003, some 70,000 union employees of the nation's three largest grocery chains went on strike in Southern California over their employers' plans to cut wages and benefits. The three chains -- Kroger, Safeway and Albertson's -- determined they could no longer be competitive in the Southern California market if they had to pay their employees as generously as they had in the past. Why? Because Wal-Mart, the biggest grocer in America, was coming to town. Though Wal-Mart had a presence in California for years, it had recently announced plans to introduce 40 Wal-Mart Supercenters -- 200,000 square-foot retail and grocery stores -- to the area. "The supermarkets themselves were terrified that they would be undercut -- severely undercut -- by Wal-Mart," says Edna Bonacich, a sociology professor at the University of California, Riverside, "and that it would drive them out of business."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/transform/employment.html

 

[Stinger]

Stinger - Tell me the truth - you work for Wal-mart right?
The figures you quote just emphasize what a terrible employer Wal-mart is.

No I don't work for Wal-Mart and if they were so terrible no one would work there. So.....

Do you think $10 an hour is a living wage?

I have no idea what "living wage" means. Wages don't live. My daughter worked there and managed on her own if that is what you mean. My brother-in-law worked there and when he left he was making a very good salary. Why do you only complain about Wal-Mart when if fact they pay very competive wages in the retail business. How much more are you willing to pay for the goods you buy?

Even with those numbers - employees would still be eligible for governmet assistance and be considered below the poverty line!

An arbitrary number set by government workers. How much do the people make at the stores you shop at?

Wal-mart also is in litigation for forcing workers to work off the clock to avoid paying overtime.

You'll have to post more specifics. Wal-Mart cannot do anything any other company can't do. If a person is non-exempt then they will recieve it. If they are management and exempt then, like me, they may not.

On the issue of healthcare - look at the following:

If you have something of authority to post that rebuts what I posted then post it.

http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_acti..._info/facts_and_figures/walmartonbenefits.cfmBut the cite you posted is wrong concerning the cost of health care at Wal-Mart

"Wal-Mart benefits - available to full and part-time associates - include health care insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large."

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me and when my daughter worked there is was.

Wal-mart forces American companies to compete with nations that pay their workers $1.00 a day. How are American workers supposed to compete with that?

Wal-Mart doesn't force anyone to do anything. And how do you expect those people in those countries to ever better their lot in life if you deny them opportunity?

Who is going to prosecute them?

Any DA out there who wants to try and make a name for him/herself with uniformed voters.

Of course you have no statistics to back that up.

I have reality. Go by most Wal-Mart locations. They are the center pieces of the most active business districts. If I were opening a store the road that leads to Wal-Mart would be a prime location for it.

Why do you want to deny the consumer low cost goods and conveinent locations.

You guys on the left just amaze me, you complain about high prices when it comes to gas and complain about low prices when it comes to Wal-Mart.

Go start your own chain of retail stores and pay people $20 an hour and give them no cost health care and non-contributory retirement if that's what you think should be done. You are free to do it. And charge prices people are willing to pay. Let me know how long you stay in business.

 

[hipsterdufus]

No I don't work for Wal-Mart and if they were so terrible no one would work there. So.....



I have no idea what "living wage" means. Wages don't live. My daughter worked there and managed on her own if that is what you mean. My brother-in-law worked there and when he left he was making a very good salary. Why do you only complain about Wal-Mart when if fact they pay very competive wages in the retail business. How much more are you willing to pay for the goods you buy?



An arbitrary number set by government workers. How much do the people make at the stores you shop at?



You'll have to post more specifics. Wal-Mart cannot do anything any other company can't do. If a person is non-exempt then they will recieve it. If they are management and exempt then, like me, they may not.




If you have something of authority to post that rebuts what I posted then post it.

http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_acti..._info/facts_and_figures/walmartonbenefits.cfmBut the cite you posted is wrong concerning the cost of health care at Wal-Mart

"Wal-Mart benefits - available to full and part-time associates - include health care insurance with no lifetime maximum. Associate premiums begin at less than $40 per month for an individual and less than $155 per month for a family, no matter how large."

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me and when my daughter worked there is was.



Wal-Mart doesn't force anyone to do anything. And how do you expect those people in those countries to ever better their lot in life if you deny them opportunity?




Any DA out there who wants to try and make a name for him/herself with uniformed voters.



I have reality. Go by most Wal-Mart locations. They are the center pieces of the most active business districts. If I were opening a store the road that leads to Wal-Mart would be a prime location for it.

Why do you want to deny the consumer low cost goods and conveinent locations.

You guys on the left just amaze me, you complain about high prices when it comes to gas and complain about low prices when it comes to Wal-Mart.

Go start your own chain of retail stores and pay people $20 an hour and give them no cost health care and non-contributory retirement if that's what you think should be done. You are free to do it. And charge prices people are willing to pay. Let me know how long you stay in business.

I hope you didn't spend too long on this post, because there are no facts here. Anecdotal evidence will not suffice when it comes to the countries largest employer; Walmart

BTW - American's complain about high gas prices when Big Oil is raking in record profits white gas prices are at a record high. Did you notice that as soon as big oil smelled a whiff of windfall profit tax the prices went down?