Guess Who is An Outsourcer?

Well, that's good because it's capitalism and private ownership. Monopolies which help the monopoly owner and hurt everyone else are always good, for instance, the intellectual PROPERTY laws that are protecting the dear Monsanto.

 

So it's good that a single company is allowed to own a patent on a something that is natural and they had no part in creating? Fine, I'll patent sunshine and charge 1 million bucks a day for you to use my light.

 

If you were smart/clever enough to get that patented, I would agree to it because people who are clever enough to obtain monopolies deserve said monopolies. I do not get envious of the SUCCESS of others, even if their success is greedy and destructive towards me my family and the rest of the world. That's evil and liberal.

 

The purpose of patents is to patent your own inventions, not take ownership of things you did not even have a part in inventing. This needs to be spelled out in the constitition and companies like monsanto need to be stripped of their patent rights.

 

Yeah, the only important thing here is that the words "need to be stripped of their (patent) rights". You are an evil liberal that hates individual liberties, for instance, patent rights which constrict the availability and thus affordability of things.

You must understand the perfection of (Ayn) Randian philosophy, which is that greed is not only good, but god. We must worship greed. We must worship greed until we place the rights of others to attain forceful monopolies over us, as a higher priority than ourselves and our families if need be.

 

If Masanto wants to invent something and patent it, fine. But they should not be allowed to claim ownership of nature.

 

Yes, they should.

 

Did they add anything to seeds? No. Did they do somethng to make them better? No.

Patents are for inventions, not simply taking ownership of commonly used things.

The only patents that are legit that they own are the ones on the gentically engineering tech they developed for seeds.

Them trying to patent certain seeds in general should be viewed as criminal.

They are trying to patent corn, for example, and want to make it illegal for any farmers to grow corn without their tech, which costs more than mosr farmers can pay.

 

But how are the rich going to get richer at the expense of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing peasant have nots, then? That's not justice, that's liberalism.

 

So justice is letting rich snobs break the law at the expense of the poor? You are definiately a republican.

 

No; I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the law should be partial in favor of the haves since they've proven themselves to be competent, unlike the have nots.

 

Competant at what? They did not do anything. As I said in my post, their patents on their getically mutated crops are fine. my problem is with them trying to patent all corn as their own invention. They want to make it illegal for farmers to grow non-mutated corn.

 

At life. What they do might be self-serving at the expense of everyone else, but the truth is that no dumbass liberal living in his parents' basement at age 50 is gonna be able to do what monopoly owners do, no matter what, because they're not that CLEVER and competent.

 

So you are saying that a rich person exploiting everyone else is completely justified........So I take it you are not a Christian then, same here.

 

Yes, because I'm not a liberal.

I am an atheist, but if there is an all loving god, I'm assuming they'd stand for the rights of the haves more than the have nots because the haves are better people for being competent and driven enough to make a lot of money for themselves.

 

Most rich today inheritied money and are too lazy and stupid to make it themselves. Look at Paris Hilton. Her father earned his money, but she is so stupid she can't even flip burgers at a fast food restuarant. She started taking over some asspects of Hilton hotels, and their stock as gone down a lot since then. She is single handedly killing the company with her stupidity.

 

She still deserves more money than you even though she is an evil piece of dung, simply because it was VOLUNTARILY given to her.

 

What about the ones like Romney who make money by performing hostile takeovers of companies and then simply firing everyone, stealing their pensions, selling off all the copany assets and letting the company go bankrupt, leaving the stockholding holding the bag..

 

Romney is an evil genius but he's an evil GENIUS, not a vile freeloading scumbag who is a DUMBASS, which is what liberals are. I'd rather be controlled by an evil genius than a liberal dumbass.

 

First of all. Buying a company and selling it for scrap, and letting the other stockholders take the fall while you run off with their money does not make him a genius. From a technical standpoint, he should be in prison, since what he did was insider trading.

 

You are just another envious liberal trying to rationalize your hatred for a successful genius such as Romney.

 

How is he successful? He has invented nothing.....He has earned nothingf.....He's stolen everything he had from people who worked their entire lives to build up companies. He is a corporate raider and a thug.

 

The evidence speaks for itself. He's rich, and is gonna be the next president of the UNITED STATES for cryin out loud. Obama doesn't count as the president because he's a Democrat and is nothing but an affirmative action president, so don't try to pull that one on me.

 

Being rich does not make one successful. He has not added anything to this world. And he never will. he had to steal others work to get his money.

 

The last Democratic Party presidential nominee, John Kerry, was an outsourcer too.
http://gogov.com/kerryoutsourcing1.htm