|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 11:26 AM | |||||||||||||||
| kellychaos |
So screw the unions in trying to make a better workplace and standard of living for their members, right? Ford came onto the scene when monopolies and some of things they did with their "liberties" came to a close. Unfortunately for Mr. Ford (and other industry leaders), his influence came at a time when people who were sick of some of the abuses to which they were being subjected. I believe in the spirit of the union in the beginning. I think that it's become a big bureaucratic mess that's lost it's way nowadays. I'm not a fan of "big government" or socialism as you keep trying to say. I just don't think you have an adequate feel for how bad things were back then for the workers and how badly unions were needed to keep some of the abuses in check ... not necessarily (indeed, not mostly) from Mr. Ford. All I was saying was that prior to the union's solidification, some government intervention might have been necessary. I'll just leave at this: Ford did some good things. Ford did some bad things. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 30th, 2003 05:32 PM | |||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
Well, to be quite honest Bennet, I believe Ford did what he did to impliment a new economic niche. Through his acts, he managed to create a middle class with more disposable income and more leisure time with which to spend their hard earned wages. It was fairly symbiotic situation in my opinion, and as he, much like many of his affluent peers, came from a non-aristocratic background, I feel to a certain extent he did so without entirely parasitic intent. In any case, the point I was trying to make in all this was that the citizen has more power to impliment change through means existing outside the government, than the government inherently has a right to do by its own accord. Neither of us got very far, my associate is of the 'big government' camp of thinking, while I tend towards the exact opposite spectrum and in the end we agreed to disagree. I was asking for Kevin's help because, while I can cite historical examples of single citizens inspiring drastic changes in society, the argument I was working against was concering future implication: The ability for a single citizen to bring about change has both become easier, through full-spectrum communication, but more difficult as collective society seems to have an inherent attention defecit disorder. He felt that the only way true change can come about, in a future context, would be through the government. I, more from hope than pure reasoning, disagree vehemently. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 30th, 2003 01:33 PM | |||||||||||||||
| Bennett |
Re: Kevin/ Democratic Party I'd actually like to try to get this back on topic, which was: Quote:
Regardless, he had the power to implement changes within in his own company immediately. Did he give people better pay and hours because he was a great guy? Did he make vehicles that were built well and with safety in mind because he was a great guy? Who knows, it seems like a lot of the things you mention just make good business sense, if they didn't, would they have inspired the trend as you mention? Any person that takes pride in what they do will do a better job. About the Democratic party... it would seem like the ability to make the changes mentioned would become exponentially harder for a political party. First of all, there isn't one person who could make immediate change. There would most likely be conflicting views within the party, and even if they were all in agreement, we are still a mostly bipartisan government, they would then have to deal with the Republicans. Not to mention special interest groups, wealthy business owners who don't want the government telling them what to do, people who generally don't think that this is something that the government should be concerned with, etc. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 30th, 2003 01:02 PM | |||||||||||||||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 That was MY point.Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 27th, 2003 04:15 PM | |||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
"I never claimed to be an "authority" but I know enough to form an opinion." An opinion based upon partial information and half truths is void of any value, and certainly not worth sharing. "Getting back to the original point, he did NOT do these thing in the interest of altruism, which was you said. Strike one." Really? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. My exact words were "(Ford did) much to improve the lives and conditions of so many in such a short amount of time with limited influence." I never hinted at, nor expressly said, he did so altruistically. That was your interpretation. Your strike is a foul ball. "The ends justify the means, right? I could give a damn whether he suceeded or not. There was plenty of competition and resources to take up the slack. I think the U.S. would have survived." I've never believed the ends justify the means, I the opposite as it happens: The means justify the end, which is why I am so concerned with the observation of law in all things. "Let's sensationalize a few isolated incidents to make our point, shall we. I'm talking in general, that's the job of the government. In taking things in your own hands like that, you're no better than gangsters and illegal militia." So you're a socialist. Does that mean you don't believe banks shouldn't have guards? Security Personal should be fired and United States Servicemen positioned in their place? If we follow your logic far enough, what we'll have is a Orwellian Oligarchy. "Yes, there is a difference and he crossed the line into racism." No actually he didn't. The line is crossed when beliefs translate into actions. Read the US Constitution, which as defined by the US Supreme Court holds a citizen is able "to state a preference in every field of endeavour, and as long as that document is law of the land, no one can stop him." Marx might agree with you, but I certainly don't. "That's not necessary. I know what I know." So you are no longer merely a man with an opinion, but an expert who can learn nothing further on this topic. I see. "Ford was simply NOT the major player in aeronautical engineering you make him out to be." Actually, my statement had to do with his concern for a quality product not his feats in aeronomics. I believe this strike is also a foul, and I won't wait for four. Two is enough, after this post I'm walking. You aren't worth the air that fills your lungs, let alone my attentions, as you cannot even follow a simple post without interjecting your own ungrounded thoughts into it. If you consider my disdain your victory, then I can only hope you enjoy it. "There were plenty of people back then who found anti-semitism appauling." And there were plenty of people who thought homosexuality was a travesty against nature and that the US was destined to be a light unto the world. 'Plenty of people' will believe anything. "Hiring thugs and scabs ... which you have already conceded that he did ... IS an abuse of power." No, it was an extreme solution to an extreme problem. As you have clearly shown a deficient knowledge concerning Ford, the conditions of the Depression and Turn-of-the-Century business, I will simply inform you your remarks are silly rather than correct them. "I could care less about most wealthy people. In general, they don't affect me." Sad, sad little peasant. I suppose politicians don't effect you either? "Besides, society has a way of regulating itself. If enough people don't agree with those in power who abuse their power, things change. " The Bastille would be an apt portrayal of this. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 27th, 2003 11:20 AM | |||||||||||||||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh yeah ... nice getting insulting when an argument doesn't go your way. Are you taking "Vince Lessons"?Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 26th, 2003 06:21 PM | |||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
"Wrong. I did quite an essay on him in college." An essay hardly makes you a authority on his life and deeds. Spending a week writing a ten page report, an another hour years later casting about online does not make you a legitimate source of information. "Sugarcoat it in altruism if you like but it was an act of simple self-interest." Stating facts in perspective of the reality from which they were born is not sugarcoating. In regards to self interest, everyone acts out of consideration to themselves; Even adhering to one's own philosophy of altruism can be viewed as an act of self-interest. "The government doesn't let major coporations go under if they can help it. They would have (and actually DID to a degree) bailed him out if it would have come to that. " Yes, I'm sure Hoover and Roosevelt had enough funds to save Ford Industry's if they went under. After all, after the Public Works Program and the debt of World War 1, the lack of European reparations and the inability of citizens domestically to pay their taxes in full, our national treasury had TONS of liquidatable funds. The aide which he recieved barely salvaged his corporation, had he done anything differently, even the government could not have kept his business afloat. "Controlling civil unrest is the function of the police and, if necessary, the state militia ... NOT hired thugs." Tell that to the citizens slain at the Haymarket revolt. I'm sure they fully appreciated the mitilia and police handling things. Considering that was still a pronounced fear, and only a couple decades past, I think Ford's scabs saved a few lives in truth. "Yeah, I know." Do you? There is a difference between a book and paper Nimrod. "I brought up the paper because that had the most longevity of the two." Nice clean up. Why not mention them both? Are your sausage-like finger incapable of typing for extended periods of time? Did your X-Box call your attentions from the other room? "Why am I not surprised? Being the benevolent soul you paint him to be, I would have thought that any form of bigotry would have tarnished your image of him." Bigotry I can tolerate, everyone is entitle to their own opinion. He was not, however, a racist. There is a fine line between the two. He, like Teddy Roosevelt before him, viewed other races along an evolutionary line of ascendancy. Are you in favour of censor for those whom disagree with you? I wonder then what Freedom really means to you. . .No, actually I don't. You've made your attitude quite clear in the past. "I applaud the concessions he had to make in order to stay in business in a country that built and supported his business." No you don't. Your statement is as sincere as it truthful. He was rich enough to retire in relative luxory, especially in the hell bent thirty's were even a little cash was considered a fortune. He had no need to keep his company afloat, in truth, he could have done substantially better if he had closed his plants down. "It must have been rough for him. By the way, take a look at this link and show me where you see Ford being a "big wheel" in aeronautics manufacturing." Your link is meaningless. Pick up a copy of "Autobiography of Values" by Charles Lindbergh. Most of it is relatively worthless, a hallow attempt at self aggrandizement by a once emminant man whom the world forgot, but on historical notation, it does hold some value. You attempt to paint Ford as some sort of villain because he held views, which were not abnormal for the period, that we now question and managed to make himself wealthy is trvial and smallminded. 'If wealthy man abused their good fortune, or the needy sought to penalize them, both groups would be buried in the crash of common disaster.' Ford can hardly have been said to have abused his station or wealth. You, like no many other mindless peons, work tirelessly to destory the rich because you are not one of them. Your jealousy is as transparent and impotent as your supposed intellect. You, Kelly, are a mediocre, middle classed peasant incapable of rising above your station, your pretenses to the contrary are delightful in as much as they are tragically amusing. "If anything, they may have been a player in developing the tri-motors for the B-24's .... not really THAT much of impact as your trying to imply." He's responsible for more than that, but really, go back to your Big Mac and and Empty V, I'll not bother you with the facts any longer. If you'd had an interest, you would have investigated them long before now. I'm not your teacher. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 26th, 2003 12:04 PM | |||||||||||||||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, take a look at this link and show me where you see Ford being a "big wheel" in aeronautics manufacturing. If anything, they may have been a player in developing the tri-motors for the B-24's .... not really THAT much of impact as your trying to imply.LINK |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 04:17 PM | |||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
"Look even at the Republican Party. Would you say the current administration stands for the ideals of the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, and Eisenhower?" Well, my understanding of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Lincoln are somewhat different than yours. Lincoln didn't liberate blacks to make them American citizens, he originally planned to send as many as possible back to Africa. He realized, in the face of the Industrial Revolution, that slave labour would become obsolete and adherring to it would be counter-productive to America. Roosevelt was a bit of a demogogue, but he was as much heartfelt as hotheaded. While he was certainly a statesman, he was better suited as Secretary of the Navy than President. As for Eisenhower. . .He was a demogague and a fool as well. He had quite a bit to contribute towards making the reputation of the US internationally tarnished, from his handling or Iran to the general direction he pointed the CIA. The Republican party's problem, as I see it, is that it has no belief structure, and are reduced to clutching at individual issues. Even as the Democratic party was spawned from Jefferson's Democratic-Republic Party, the Republicans are the bastard child of the Whig and Know-Nothings. A muliplicity of conflicting ideals over time has amalgamated into party's which are both opproutunistic and purely political. Does Bush represent his party? No, but then, neither did MacArthur who the Republican's put up in 1948. The Republicans, as well as Democrats, have a tendancy to nominate individuals based not on their personal qualifications, but on their likelyhood to be elected and therefore give the party that much more clout. Kelly, really, your input is almost never necessary. "He wasn't so generous during the down times of the Depression. Try reading up on some of the scabs he took in which broke the union lines or some of the thugs he hired to keep picket lines and job seekers away from the doors of his River Rouge Plant. Technical and financial accomplishment notwithstanding, the man on a personal level was an ass." You obviously know nothing about 'the man' himself. He took in scabs because he realized that the strike in question would have crippled his corporation and the last thing the Depression needed was yet another failed corporation with national influence. Had he catered to the strike, he would have closed his doors from Chicago to Detroit within a year. Secondly, Rome learned the hard way never to trust a seemingly complacent mob. At River Rouge, Ford merely paid attention to the lessons taught in history. You might do well to do the same. "Try flaming anti-semite who financed a whole paper around his bigotry. He was obsessed with it." 'Whole paper?' Try a book, and one which was quoted often by Hitler himself. I've quoted from it myself. As for being an anti-semite, well, I've been called one too and I don't bother to contest it. Question Israel, and you'll be labelled an Anti-Semite too. I couldn't possibly care less about his personal opinions of other races and nationalities. He was loyal to America to the point where he produced the highest quality planes with standards set by Charles Lindbergh during World War 2 even with the knowledge they would be used against a nation which he openly supported, at least ideaologically. |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 12:00 PM | |||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: Kevin/ Democratic Party Quote:
Furthermore, I didn't claim to be solely a libertarian, but blah blah, there's no need to debate political theory with a faux conservative who views the world like a primate with Down's Syndrome. But hey, thanks for ruining another promising thread. It's what you're best at! |
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 10:51 AM | |||||||||||||||
| mburbank | He didn't hate Jews. He just didn't like me. | ||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 10:50 AM | |||||||||||||||
| kellychaos |
Re: Kevin/ Democratic Party Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 10:39 AM | |||||||||||||||
| mburbank | You are such a psycophantic fuck it defies description. You are not a Liberatian at all, but not because of any political stance. You are simply far tooo stupid to understand let alone follow any philosiphy at all. Political, religious, ethical, it hardly matters. You're little more than a caveman with a computer and your thoughts are determined by a nauseating blend of hero worship, tribalism, and self pity. | ||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 08:56 AM | |||||||||||||||
| VinceZeb |
Re: Kevin/ Democratic Party Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 04:12 AM | |||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: Kevin/ Democratic Party Quote:
 I'm not sure that I can answer this question, since I tend to look at politics in a "Liberal vs. Conservative" context, as opposed to a Party identified context.I think every Party in the U.S., particularly the Democratic one, has/have gone through so many structural adaptions, that it is hard to say what they stand for. According to some Greens I know, this isn't just a recent phenomenon. While the theorists who tended to support the Democratic Party advocate and champion various causes, it seems that they are often ideals the Party has never met. Democrats opposed ending slavery, just as they often opposed the advancement of racial equality. Perhaps this stems from the claim that they really ARE the "party of the people," or whatever. I think the Party of Jackson stemmed from a kind of agrarian, conservative populism that might not fall in line with that of FDR (whom I tend to respect, just like my Granny ). "The people" are complex and diverse, they have opinions that vary and conflict. I think the international Liberalism, combined with the personal racism of Woodrow Wilson, is a fine example of this.I don't feel qualified to answer the question, I guess. Every Party in American history has come about from the leftovers of other parties, the disgruntled members of another body. The Green Party is a product of the 1980s anti-nuke movement, as well as the remnants of the Citizens Party. I think it's hard to create an institution with a platform devised by people who are ultimately maliable. Look even at the Republican Party. Would you say the current administration stands for the ideals of the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, and Eisenhower? In sum: Ask Max. 
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 01:05 AM | |||||||||||||||
| El Blanco | uh, Seth, are you really sure the democrats can take credit for that? They were also a big part of the problem. | ||||||||||||||
| Jun 25th, 2003 12:57 AM | |||||||||||||||
| Sethomas |
Well, it's only fitting that the Civil Rights movement was successful under democratic leadership, seeing how Henry Ford seemed to overlook that issue.
|
||||||||||||||
| Jun 24th, 2003 06:01 PM | |||||||||||||||
| The_Rorschach |
Kevin/ Democratic Party Now I know you are not a Democrat, but I also realize you are fairly liberal, and I have a few honest questions for you. I'm in correspondance with a friend, and anything you could provide would be extremely valuable. . .Assuming of course you feel disposed to answer them. As there is some confusion as to what Democrats stand for, I am going to use the loose definition provided by President Truman: "The Democratic Party is the peoples party. It is dedicated to the service of all the people and not just the [service of] the special interests of a few. The record of the Democratic party is blazed across the face of the nation...in a story of better, healthier, happier life for the common people in this great country.... Special interests never let up in their effort to control this free government of ours. It is just as important now to prevent that from happening as it was in times of the great Presidents--[Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt]." For the record, I consider Woodrow Wilson a traitor, and FDR the worst sort of socialist subversive, but that is neither here nor there. Henry Ford, by creating a five day work week, the nine hour day, and raising the bar of acceptability for payment of wages, managed to inspire a trend which set the tone for worker's rights which we carry with us even today. By marketing his product, both planes and automobiles, with the average citizen in mind, he set new standards of safety and quality which enriched, and very possibly saved, countless lives*. He was also a mostly conservative in his outlook, though he did seem to embrace national socialism, or Nazi Facism. My question is simply this: If one man could do so much to improve the lives and conditions of so many in such a short amount of time with limited influence, why had the Democratic Party failed for so long to work similar feats? *Mail was delivered mostly by private industry primarily by plane. When one crashed, built by Ford, Henry called together his staff and told them they would begin constructing the hulls of steel, use only one pair of wings, and designed for a single engine. He demaned that they be manufactured in such a way that a crash would not kill the occupants. This was fairly typical of his concern for quality. |
||||||||||||||
