21
   

Little girls give away free lemonade. Conservative columnist is outraged.

 
 
jeeprs
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 02:52 am
This thread cries out for the following, apologies to all those who have already read it.

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes one and gives it to your neighbour who doesn’t have a field to put it in.

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk. Then the cows die due to neglect.

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk. Then the cows die in the war.

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you. Then the cows are killed in the war.

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. (

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

EUROPEAN UNION BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The EU takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away because the quota has been exceeded.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.

No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.


A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market it worldwide.


AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the hell out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows. Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

Pepijn Sweep
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 03:04 am
@jeeprs,
ORANGISM

You quickly butcher your cows. Use skins for foundations.

Sell the meat as expensive as possible.

Invest in foreign economies.

Wait for return.

Where are the World Cup Finals ?

Kaapstad ?

May España win with Honors !
Sentience
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 08:50 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Somebody who knows the Afrikaans name for Cape Town! *Gasp*
0 Replies
 
Specter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:55 pm
@nimh,
with any issue or political party, there will always be people on the fringes of the issue. the problem is, they are usually the most vocal component of that group. in that way, a small group of nuts can make the whole group seem incredulous

it seems that both of the major parties in the US are constantly witch hunting. they try to find a way to show that the other side of the fight is wrong in some way, or to insinuate that America is proceeding down the wrong path due to the other party.

i am in fact a conservative, and i in no way see free lemonade stand as a threat to america, or any indication of what is wrong with this great country. of course i am a firm believer in capitalism and this nations innumerable opportunities for self advancement. and in my eye, a more worthwhile lesson about the american economical system could have been taught to this young girl by having her sell the lemonade for a profit. of course it would be a simple lesson, but one that, sooner or later, should be taught to our children.

but this issue isn't really about whether or not a girl should sell or give away lemonade. it is about our american culture. it shows why our country is so great. it shows that we constantly fight each other for what we believe is right, whether it be capitalism or socialism, or any other -ism or issue. i, for one, don't believe in the concept of societal harmony and utopia. fact is, it is that we constantly fight each other so that we may make the nation better. if we were all content and harmonious, nothing would get done, and we would not be constantly trying to be better. in this small scheme of politics and rhetoric, there are in fact winners and losers. that is what drives our politics, and i am proud of that. since there must be a winner, we all must try to be better and "win". if we all won, as some would see as best, we would have no heart to improve.

well thats about all the wind i can blow for now. again, i am just a man who may be right or wrong. but who's to say who really is which? Not you or me, i know that.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:27 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Me, I think they have far more community spirit in their little fingers than the mean-spirited author of this ridiculous article.


When I was a child, this activity would have been called a demonstration of the Christian spirit.

Of course, that was before the born-again movement became the face of Christianity in the United States.

Shame, that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 02:04 pm
@ehBeth,
msolga wrote:
Me, I think they have far more community spirit in their little fingers than the mean-spirited author of this ridiculous article.
ehBeth wrote:


When I was a child, this activity would have been called a demonstration of the Christian spirit.

Of course, that was before the born-again movement became the face of Christianity in the United States.

Shame, that.
When I was that age,
I was much, much, much more greedy than I am now. (Still Greedy)

As an informal hobby, I have made a practice of giving cash
to people who don 't expect it (like dropping it into the grass below from a passing hot air balloon).

At that age, if I had been able to look into the future
and to see myself doing THAT, I 'd have been shocked,
chagrinned
& horrified in the worst degree.





David
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 02:30 pm
@ehBeth,
You're on to something there.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 04:38 pm
@Specter,
Quote:
fact is, it is that we constantly fight each other so that we may make the nation better.


pretty scary viewpoint. Isn't this why violence is such a conspicuous feature of modern America? How is 'fighting each other' going to make anything better?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 04:44 pm
@jeeprs,
Quote:
fact is, it is that we constantly fight each other so that we may make the nation better.
jeeprs wrote:
pretty scary viewpoint.
Isn't this why violence is such a conspicuous feature of modern America?
The fighting is very seldom violent.





David
jeeprs
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
the statistics say otherwise. The rate of gun deaths in the USA is far higher than any other country in the developed world.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:44 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Did you ever get around to reading American Homicide?

I've suggested it to you a few times.

It might help you to be more current in discussions about violence in the United States.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 07:58 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
the statistics say otherwise.
The rate of gun deaths in the USA is far higher than any other country in the developed world.
Most of that is drug gangs violently disputing sales turf.

I, for one, don 't feel threatened by THAT.

Truth be told: I don 't feel threatened by anything.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:01 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Did you ever get around to reading American Homicide?
No, sorry. Is that a novel?

ehBeth wrote:
I've suggested it to you a few times.

It might help you to be more current in discussions about violence in the United States.
I did not remember.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I am certain Beth told you several times that is was a study and not a novel. It was published by Harvard University Press which does not publish novels.

Here are two reviews:

rom Publishers Weekly
Ohio State history professor Roth's ambitious project—analyzing American homicide from colonial times to the present—makes for an intriguing if dense read. He distills his argument into several key statistics, all of which hinge upon the fact that Americans are murdered more frequently than citizens in any other first world democracy: U.S. homicide rates are between six and nine per 100,000 people. Roth refutes popular theories about why this is so (e.g., poverty, drugs) and lays out an alternate hypothesis: increases in homicide rates correlate with changes in people's feelings about government and society, such as whether they trust government and its officials and their sense of kinship with fellow citizens. Roth examines homicides by historical period, race and region, especially significant when comparing the ante- and postbellum North and South—turmoil and divisiveness in the South led to an explosion of murder in some areas during the war that continued during Reconstruction. Readers impatient with statistics or desiring a more narrative overview may be disappointed, but those wanting to learn what history can teach us about this most primal act of aggression will find Roth's analysis fascinating. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From The Washington Post
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com Reviewed by Dennis Drabelle [email protected] This book's stark title contrasts with its bulk and its reliance on multitudes of statistics. Randolph Roth, a history professor at Ohio State, has studied murder from colonial times to the present. He traces the great rise in American murder rates to the middle decades of the 19th century, when "the least homicidal places in the Western world suddenly became the most homicidal. By the end of the Civil War, homicide rates among unrelated adults were substantially higher in the North than in Canada or western Europe, and higher still by one or two orders of magnitude in the South and Southwest." What set the United States apart from less violent countries, Roth suggests, was a series of upheavals that hit the nation at the time: "the crises over slavery and immigration, the decline in self-employment, and the rise of industrialized cities. . . . Disillusioned by the course the nation was taking, people felt increasingly alienated from both their government and their neighbors. They were losing the sense that they were participating in a great adventure with their fellow Americans. Instead, they were competing in a cutthroat economy and a combative electoral system against millions of strangers whose interests and values were antithetical to their own." Some of those perceptions, of course, are still widely held today, and Roth sees a correlation between how we are governed and the likelihood that we will kill one another: "The statistics make it clear that in the twentieth century homicide rates have fallen during the terms of presidents who have inspired the poor or have governed from the center with a popular mandate, and they have risen during the terms of presidents who have presided over political and economic crises, abused their power, or engaged in unpopular wars. The most disastrous increase occurred while Richard Nixon was in power. The most substantial decreases occurred under Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Clinton. But it is not always clear whether the decreases were related to specific policies or whether they were due to the appearance of legitimacy that a particular administration achieved in the eyes of the poor." To paraphrase the humorist Mr. Dooley, it seems that potential murderers follow the election returns.
Copyright 2009, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:19 pm
@plainoldme,
I had FORGOTTEN.
Your summary reminded me. YES, I have read something about that,
tho not the book itself.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:21 pm
@nimh,
Likely figured Bork Odinga would make them share the wealth with all the lazy kids if they tried selling it...
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I, for one, don 't feel threatened by THAT.

Truth be told: I don 't feel threatened by anything.


Oh well, I am sure all the grieving relatives of the victims can draw some kind of solace from the knowledge that you're OK.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:32 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
I, for one, don 't feel threatened by THAT.

Truth be told: I don 't feel threatened by anything.


Oh well, I am sure all the grieving relatives of the victims
can draw some kind of solace from the knowledge that you're OK.
OK, I know that I can rely on u to tell them.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 01:28:26