Happy B-day NAFTA.. 20yrs Of Job Loss.

No Paul alive will get in the White House.

Just print unlimited money, economic woes resolved.

Only if we can use WASP skins as parchment.

Woo! Someone else watched Alien Apocalypse?

You don't get to say "stay out of my commercial enterprise" and "stop letting jobs go overseas" at the same time.

No, you can. It sounds a bit like "ssttaoyp oluett otfi mnyg cjoombmsegrocoivaelr esnetaesrprise" though.

No. Should I?

Bruce Campbell.

It's a very, very low B movie with some good one liners.

This looks like a good way to spend my Saturday.

Bruce Campbell is great.

I recommend Jack of All Trades and Bubba Ho-tep, too

I'm assuming you mean employee's rights. Employer's rights is a Republican thing.

But the problem isn't the employee's rights or environmental protection initially, it is that the democrats and liberals have taken it 10 steps beyond reasonable and made it into a control over the businesses of America thing.

Or are you going to say that asking permission to conduct business every day is a good thing?

I did, I was almost asleep.

As for the "control over business of America thing" we'll just have to disagree there.

As for the last line, what the *** you talkin' bout Willis?

Before you get confused: I don't like the NAFTA either, as it basically promotes moving manufacturing out of the country.

Let's line item this ***:

environmental protections (we disagree on, as for some reason you want to damage the planet to the point we can't live on it)

employee protections (we disagree on, as for some reason you think the "free market" is infallible, when that's far from the case)

you think a business = it's owner when it comes to rights, when that's insane

American jobs are shipped overseas to produce low quality merchandise to ship back (tax free) and sell to Americans, while the corporations evade American taxes by using their overseas offices, etc.

At least the last part we should be able to agree should be eliminated, I'm not going to touch on employees rights, as I don't think we'll get anywhere with it.

As for environmental protections: I'm not for stupid ***like cap and trade, but there is no reason to support dumping in rivers, or letting companies pollute to no end.

If the owners don't own the business, who does?

One often overlooked and integral part of cap and trade is that it encourages companies to lower their overall impact by investing in new technology (in theory) but also that the cap is reduced over time. It gives companies a possibility to buy some time to update their processes instead of imposing harsh restrictions overnight. The issue is that the new conservatives see it as oppression and the liberals see it as catering to business.

I think a better system is to impose increasing liabilities for pollution, especially for overseas companies or companies that have shifted overseas, and start enforcing the tax code on companies that relocate for tax purposes and using that money to modernize infrastructure. Stop giving companies incentives just for existing and make them contingent on clean energy and fair practice.

It's not a very business friendly way to approach the issue, but the business friendly approaches aren't working. At some point you stop bribing an insolent child with candy and start putting your foot down.

The business is a means for commerce, it's a legal construction to SEPARATE the owner from the business.

I forgot, you are into socialism, so you want more governmental control over businesses.

When environmental protections go beyond the scope of protecting the environment and instead goes to regulating businesses, then we have a problem.

Why should the EPA *** emissions penalties for a restaurant?

We have never had a free market, unless you want to consider the black market as free.

But when you *** penalties in the name of protecting employee's "rights," even though there were no "rights" violated, you think that is ok?

Case in point: Employer mandate in ACA.

You obviously do not understand international tax treaties. But then again, if I tried explaining it to you, that's like teaching a monkey not to eat it's own ***.

No Bobo No!

I agree with you. Environmental regulations have it's place. But when they start becoming stupid, that's when the line has to be drawn.

Source?

1. I'm not into socialism actually, but nice ad hominem

2. Why should a restaurant be exempt from the same rules as everyone else?

3. We won't agree with this except for the never had a free market bit, the other part being the market needs to be regulated in certain areas. I'm for employers getting out of healthcare entirely, and making it single payer, but oh no "socialism" As for "employee rights" they're violated all the time, and even the few that they have, as they're kept low due to lack of collective bargaining and legal bribing of lawmakers to benefit the business instead of the employees.

case in point: there's no reason for any full time employee anywhere to be eligible for assistance government subsidizing the company's labor.

4. ad hominem

5. Then we just need to clearly define what constitutes as "stupid" as apparently we don't agree.

This whole threads a whole lot of "bro, do you even capitalism?"

So it should be neither penalty nor any prohibition on dumping any toxic chemical in out waterways?

Well as long as its being done by a business, not a private party.

That's not what King is implying. Plus, the only restaurant that deals with toxic chemicals on a regular basis is Taco Bell.

Na, it's 100% beef that they put in their taco mix.

B.E.E.F.

Barely Edible Emulated Filler

nope

You're no fun.

I have been told I'm rather boring.

Your face is boring.

your mom!

I am offend! *Spams report button*