Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Timothy Daniels, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Au contraire, please do, as often & for as long as you can manage. The
    liberals & Democrats will all dissolve when you turn blue, you know.

    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. right, i said *you* were wrong.

    you just didn't care to admit it.

    nobody's perfect, we all can make mistakes, but your inability to admit it
    was my point.
    as the rest of what you said... just your way of trying to distract form the
    above point (very bush/wmd like - d for distraction).
    Christopher Muto, Mar 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Scotty, you've missed the point - Bush had/has nothing to do with the
    loss/gain of jobs, it happened due to the implementation of technology by
    companies that wanted to utilize off-shore resources to increase their
    profits and the greed driven by share-holders.

    The government can't and keep corporations from moving their work
    off-shore, and you can only blame the corporations and share holders.
    Leythos, Mar 17, 2005
  4. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Chris, I was going to try and believe that you had something to say, was
    going to try and assume that you were not just one of the sheep repeating
    what's read/herd in the news, but your inability to back up your
    statements proves to me that you don't really have anything except the
    news/hype to state.

    If you want to make your point, go back and answer my questions, I have
    Leythos, Mar 17, 2005
  5. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    No Chris, I said that I agree that jobs were lost during the Presidents
    first term, but I also said that the President had nothing to do with the
    loss of jobs (which you seem to miss). The loss of jobs was entirely due
    to Corporate and share-holder greed.
    Leythos, Mar 17, 2005
  6. you mean your inability to back up what *you* say. if you can't concede a
    simple fact then this isn't a discussion. it is childish.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 17, 2005
  7. wow, you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole on this point about
    job creation. first you incorrectly state that bush has created jobs and
    now you say that the role of government has nothing to do with job creation?
    if government has nothing to do with job creation you may want to explain
    why bush has a 'jobs policy' or why he justified his tax cuts to the rich as
    an effort to stimulate job growth and the economy or why he has signed
    specific legislature called "Jobs Growth Act." it is amusing how you
    repeatedly ask for supporting information from others but never provide any
    of your own. you seem to try to use the tactics of name calling and
    distraction like the bus administration, only you are not good at it.

    spin from the white house on 'jobs and the economy'
    and on and on...
    the only problem being that though the above are positive and upbeat, the
    fact remains that bush has lost more jobs than he has created.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 17, 2005
  8. no true, see below.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 17, 2005
  9. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    You really don't understand the economy do you? You've not shown one link
    to anything that indicates Bush's Policies have caused the LOSS of any US
    jobs. Don't get confused here, there is a difference between the over-all
    loss of jobs during his term and his actions causing them - as anyone can
    see, his actions have not caused the loss of any jobs, only the creation
    of more jobs.
    Tax cuts don't decrease jobs, they increase job growth - sheesh, where did
    you learn anything. Come on Chris, show me where a tax cut has decreased
    job growth anywhere (and I'm sure that you'll try and weasel out of that
    one too).
    You have not provided any information that indicates Bush was responsible
    for Job Loss - only that there were jobs lost during his first term -
    which is not even close to being the same thing Chris. Now, show me where
    some reputable source has information that proves that Bush was
    responsible for the lost Jobs (please don't weasel out of this one like
    you have every other time)
    The fact is the Bush's actions since his first term are creating jobs, and
    the corporations are still taking their greed and the share-holders greed
    and moving jobs outside the USA. Bush can't stop Corporations and
    share-holders from being greedy, nor is he responsible for those same
    companies taking their jobs off-shore.
    Leythos, Mar 17, 2005
  10. This is an inherent feature of rightard thinking, i.e., the govt is a
    bumbling bunch of inefficient losers who can't pour piss out of a boot
    with the instructions printed on the heel, while at the same time
    they're a bunch of jackbooted (*always* jackbooted) Nazi thugs just
    waiting for the slightest flicker of attention to seize our guns.
    Sparky Sparticus, Mar 17, 2005
  11. Which part seems like a crisis to you, remembering that the SS trustees
    estimate of insolvancy, 2042, is considered a conservative one? The
    other reputable estimate I've seen running around is 2052.

    I'd love to forget about Bush (my fondest dream, actually); so perhaps
    you can explain to Usenet & the world why Bush claims there's a SS
    crisis which needs remedying NOW if not sooner?
    Sparky Sparticus, Mar 17, 2005
  12. Dogface wrote:
    Sounds exactly like the Repuglicans v. President Clinton in the 90's.
    Exactly what's wrong with hating a politician, anyway?
    Sparky Spartacus, Mar 19, 2005
  13. Nope, why would I wish for that?

    I have investments, as discussed elsewhere, and live on SS (disabled,
    also discussed elsewhere) and the income derived from my investments.
    No, the communists never gave anything back, they just said they would.
    Went down in flames after many years of struggle. It was in all the
    papers. In case you're tempted to think the USSR collapsed because of
    Reagan, some people predicted in the 20's that the collapse of the USSR
    was inevitable because it was an unsustainable economic model, i.e., not
    if but when.
    Problem is, the folks who campaign on reducing govt, e.g., "get it off
    peoples' backs", turn around and increase the size & cost of govt once
    in office - 2 recent examples: R Reagan & Bush43. The important thing is
    to ignore what they say and to watch what they do.
    Sparky Spartacus, Mar 19, 2005
  14. The rightwingnuts' stock in trade.
    Sparky Spartacus, Mar 27, 2005
  15. Timothy Daniels

    PizOnU Guest

    PizOnU, Mar 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.