Since UAW ends up with 55% ownership of GM after the last deal,
I'll call bullshit on anything you have to say from this point on regarding
GM and it's Unions. At the current time, GM is essentially an ESOP
and if it continues to lose money then UAW only has UAW to blame.
cap and trade won't work unless the entire world participates, everyone
knows that. Because of this, it's nothing more than a political football.
Multiple studies have been done that prove pretty conclusively that
the so-called "secret ballots" that are done to vote on unionization are
secret in name only. Employees can alway use a variety of means to
"de-unionize" if they want under the NLRB.
The fact of the matter is that unionization fights are dirty on both the
side of the unionizers and the side of the employers opposing unionization.
The current system for creating a union is very easy for management to
undermine and the penalties for firing employees involved in unionization
efforts are hand-slaps only. Card Check pushes
more power back to the unionizers but keep in mind that the SINGLE
MOST POWERFUL THING the employer can do to defeat unionization
efforts is to simply raise salaries.
Furthermore the largest sector to be affected
by unionization drives is RETAIL not manufacturing. Retail generates no
products and is, in fact, more of a drain on the economy than you would
think - a large part of the cost of a product you buy in retail has gone to
pay the lease on the building (which is then used to pay a mortgage on
the building by the building owner) and is effectively being sent to those
very same banks which caused the recession to start with. The more
wages are raised in retail the quicker people will turn to online buying
and the quicker that the strip-malls and mega-malls will turn into dinosaurs
and disappear. If anything, it would help the US economy greatly to have
the retail sector shrink and the money and labor currently being dumped
into retail, be dumped into manufacturing and creating actual products, not
just moving them around.
The gap between the highest-compensated members of a company these
days and the peons is the largest it's been in the last 50 years. That
should tell you something.
cap and trade is like abortion with the Republican party, it is used to
stir up the party faithful but nobody running things has any serious intent
to do anything about it.
OK, I will. Please explain the cause of the 2008 depression and why it
was a good thing that George Bush attempted to solve it with 2 separate
measures, the first the "stimulus checks" mailed out to every taxpayer last
the second the stimulus bill that he dragged congress back to sign right
before the election last year - and why it's a bad thing that Obama is doing
essentially the same thing this year.
Oh I forgot Putney's Rule: if a Republican does it, it's a GOOD thing, if a
Democrat does the exact same thing, it's a BAD thing.
Even buying online has one layer too many. E.g., if I buy something from
amazon or buy.com, they take my money, pass on an order to Ingram Micro
or some other distributor/wholesaler, who ships the item to me from
their nearest warehouse with the amazon or buy.com name and address as
the shipper. Amazon and buy.com never even see the item they are
"selling" me. I have sometimes thought of buying things in bulk and
reselling them at a profit on eBay, but then it occurs to me that this
is fundamentally immoral. What service am I providing the end users that
entitles me to financial compensation? I think I am beginning to
understand why a few centuries ago "trade" -- as distinct from
craftsmanship, as in producing something -- was something to be looked
How did we arrive at these multilayer distribution chains: manufacturer
-> distributor -> wholesaler -> retailer -> end user? What service
deserving compensation do most of these entities provide?
You'd be providing the service of sparing the purchaser the need of
buying 10,000 widgets to only get one.
Each layer provides the layer below with the opportunity to purchase
smaller quantities than the layer above, and the layer above with the
opportunity to deal with fewer customers than the layer below. The
retailer may also provide the end user with extra information regarding
manufacturers (and you'll notice there is a correlation between not
offering this extra information and offering a lower price).
The wholesaler doesn't want to deal with my purchase of a single welding
hood. I don't want to buy a gross of them and be stuck with 143 that I
But in the case of my order to buy.com for one "Super Whiz-Bang Gizmo,"
Ingram Micro (or whoever) ships just one of them to me. Buy.com gets a
special price not because of the quantity they are buying but because
they are buy.com and I am just me.
Or suppose I go to Barnes & Noble (the "bricks and mortar" store)
looking for a book. They buy pallet-loads of some titles, but I have
peculiar reading tastes and they don't have in stock what I want, so
they special-order it for me -- and still get their discount of 40% or
so. In addition, they get paid up front and they don't have to provide
shelf space while they wait for customers to buy out the pallet-load of
some other title.
So just buy it from Ingram Micro for the buy.com price. Oh, ingram
micro would rather have a relationship with buy.com and ship to whoever
buy.com says than set up an order page on their web site and deal with
the individual orders? That's the service buy.com is providing.
So buy straight from the publisher. Oh, the publisher would rather send
an occasional onesy-twosy order to a store that buys by the pallet-load
than deal with the end customer on all their sales? See above.
I'd be very surprised if B&N makes any money on the special orders.
That's a service they provide to keep your business; they make their
money on the pallet-loads of books.
So you ARE arguing with a straight face that a unionization drive
will get 50% signatures on cards when the employees and the
employer don't want a union.
You really have a problem with your paranoia. Get help! :-)
Consider that the employees who publically state they don't want a
union are going to get 100% support from their management and the
ones saying they want a union will be blacklisted, it IS preposterous
to make the claim that an employee who really doesen't want a union
is going to remain silent. He has NOTHING to gain by remaining
silent, and an ENORMOUS amount to gain by speaking out against
The reality is that in a secret ballot system the results always have MORE
people voting in support of the union than were willing to publically
sign cards saying they were in support of one.
Yes they do, read the rules, Bill. A number of companies have been
sued in the past by failing to carry out the election even after being
ordered to do so by the NLRB. Foot dragging on holding the election
is one of the primary tools to fight unionization drives.
Do you know how much money the CEO of Walmart makes? How much
the Walton family makes? It is nothing but a pack of lies to claim that the
company would lose money if it was unionized. They would still make
money, just slightly less of it. And in exchange wages would rise for their
employees which have a beneficial effect on the community the businesses
Don't you understand why it is that so many people are pissed at Walmart
for coming into communities and destroying all the ma-and-pa stores? Why
so many communities have fought to keep them out? It is because they
come in, undercut the small stores, the small stores go out of business,
and all their employees come to work for Walmart at minimum wage.
Then tax revenue goes down in the community and the community goes
Then people cannot understand why it is that 10 years later nobody in the
country can afford to buy cars or homes anymore and the car makers are
failing and there's tons of foreclosed homes all over the place.
When manufacturing leaves the United States because
of cheap Asian imports, retail is about all a lot of these communities have
left to provide jobs. And if the retail is paying minimum wage, the
get bled dry. That's why cities like Buffalo NY, and Flint MI are such
today and many have entire communities of homes that have sat abandonded
for two decades. Essentially the entire community ends up full of poor
bluehairs surviving off their social security checks, and Medicade-funded
hospitals with a small crust of rich doctors in the community.
If the CEO and owners of the businesses are working alongside the
employees and making a REASONABLE amount of money - I'll
be generous and say, 20 times what the average peon makes - then
I have no problem with that. And you know something Bill? If you
read the case studies of companies where the workers succesfully
de-unionized, that's exactly what you find.
Card check legislation isn't going to affect these companies.
The companies it's going to affect are the ones where the CEO's and
owners are making 250 times the amount a line worker makes, and have
golden parachutes that guarentee them tens to hundreds of millions of
EVEN IF the company loses money.
GM and the Big 3 and the UAW are a special case, and do not represent
most unions and union employees in the country. And at any rate,
GM is UAW's problem now. Frankly, it's been many years since
the last of the founding owners of GM died, and GM as a corporation
has made the argument "what's good for GM is good for America"
so many times in the past, while sticking it's snout into the public
trough, that the company should have been handed over to the UAW
20 years ago. Let the UAW fight amongst themselves to figure
out how to sell cars profitably and make wages they are happy with.
I won't shed any tears for them. In any case, card check isn't going
to do squat for UAW anyway since they are fully unionized. Card check
will help the rest of the unions who don't have penetration in their
If a candidate for the incumbent was allowed to closet up all the voters
for 6 hours before the election lecturing them about the advantage of voting
to keep things the way they are.
There you go, forgetting about Bush's 2 stimulus handouts. So, your
grandchildren are gonna only be paying for Obama's handouts? Did the
magic money fairy pay for Bush's handouts? Drop those Republican
talking points for a moment and use your mind.
Since McCain voted for the Bush stimulus I highly doubt that he would
NOT have done another stimulus after he was elected. Conservatives
just need to face the facts that we tried 28 years of trickle-down starting
with RayGun and the economists have universally concluded that it
is an utter failure. Trickle-down is voodo economics, even Bush Sr. knew
I'm not saying the stimulus is perfect. But this idea that we are going to
just toss all regulations on every business is utterly foolish and is the
No not at all. What I want is for if the majority of workers in an industry
want to be unionized that they get to be.
The only reason that Walmart could get away with shedding all the
meatpackers in the Texas example is that Walmart successfully intimidated
the rest of the employees and the entire store and chain didn't unionize.
If it had, Walmart would have been forced to work things out. And
if the rest of the retail sector had unionized at the same time then
would not be able to go run down the street to some undercutting
competitor and put Walmart out of business.
I don't mind it if employees get paid minimum wage IF the prices of
stuff in the economy that they need to buy are low. If bread cost 25 cents
loaf and milk 50 cents a bottle, and everything else was similarly priced,
then I'd agree that the unions don't have any place anymore.
But instead what I'm seeing is entire communities where the majority
of jobs in the community ONLY PAY min. wage, or a few cents above
it, and everyone in those communities is living in hell-holes. Not every
commuity is like that, of course, but way more than should be. And in
the meantime the owners of these companies are literally rolling in
If you read the wikipedia entry for card check you have read all
the pro and con arguments so there's no point in rehashing them here.
I will merely point out that when a professor points out that rising
wages are a good thing for the economy, HE is tenured and HE
has nothing to gain or lose either way. By contrast when the head of
Walmart makes claims that unions are bad, he's motivated by his own
personal self interest. So I don't really put any stock in that.
You wanna argue economic theory, go ahead. I'll argue with you.
But you better use logic to support your points, not quotes from
some chamber of commerce.
That's not how modern business works and you know it, Bill. If all or even
most consumers out there were educated consumers and spent wisely,
then companies would be forced to compete with each other on the basis
of how good their products were, not on how well they are marketed. But
instead the business world is saturated with examples of inferior products
putting companies that make superior products out of business due to
the snowball effect of marketing dollars. That drags down the quality of
life for everyone, even for the minority of educated consumers.
The people on top of things are largely there from luck. You cannot
argue that people like Nardelli know how to run Chrysler, hell -I- could do
a better job than he did, hell YOU could do a better job than he did. Geze,
Home Depot fired his ass as far as they could
when he screwed them over, the guys flat out incompetent. He was
probably screwing the sister of one of the Cerebus board members to be
put on Chrysler.
No I mean the Republicans like Phill Gramm who inserted a 250 page
rider into the 11,000 page "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000"
two days after Bush was elected, on the very day Congress was recessing
for the holidays. That rider was later dubbed the "Enron Loophole"
and it allowed the unregulated trading of subprime mortage packages,
which fired off the economic collapse we have now.
You see, Bill, Freddie and Fannie WERE regulated until Republicans
convinced Bush for the first time in history to use the federal
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to pre-empt all of
the state lending laws that had outlawed predatory lending by these
banks. All 50 state banking superintendents fought these rules but
No, that is not the truth. It is a Republican talking point that is a big
The Community Reinvestment Act didn't cause the housing meltdown,
what caused it was the large number of ARMS issued that adjusted upwards
after the housing market start to go south.
You understand the concept of a snowball dolling downhill, or the
concept of a vicious circle, don't you?
What we had is a classic bubble of people in the early 2000's who were
jumping into home-flipping in a huge way. The typical scenario was buy
a decent family home for $200K and add a bunch of fripperies then
resell it for $400K to some empty-nester who was selling their $200K
home. The flipper used zero-percent loans to hold on to the home and
that worked as long as the housing market was hot.
Then prices went up too far, and the supply of ignorant/lazy/uneducated
empty nesters with money burning holes in their pocket got used up,
and the prices started to fall. The second they did, the flippers caught
on the floor when this musical chairs game stopped were all underwater
and they all walked away from their so-called "investments" so the banks
took them back and wrote them off and themselves collapsed. And
since these ARMS were all bundled up in securites, the investors that
financed this nonsense saw their portfolios heading for the toilet and
they paniced and pulled what money they had into commodities
speculation. That drove gas prices to 4 a gallon as well as food prices
and killed consumer spending, and another related whammy was
all these idiots buying these overpriced homes were using home equity
loans to finance cars, furniture and other nonsense and when the value
of their home dropped, the equity lines all were shut down by the banks,
and consumer spending ended up starved.
Do you actually know what the 2007 default rate of loans made in, let's see,
massasschuetts banks that were under the CRA was? I'l tell you. ONE POINT
PERCENT. compared to FIVE percent for all other types of loans.
The scapgoating of the CRA was a desperate attempt by supply-siders
to cover the real reason for the crash - the lack of regulation of financial
institutions. Thank God that we didn't elect McCain, we now have a
chance to put some regulation on the banks.
The idea that the Democrats were somehow anti-regulation of banks
is a myth.
define "socialism" other than the definition your using here
which is "everything I don't like and don't understand"
The Social Security Administration is a socialist government bureau.
Wanna get rid of it? I'm young, Bill, I'm still working and I got
another 30 years at least of paying into the damn thing. I'll be more
than happy to stop doing that now and send the money into a
Then why did Bush styme all the states from regulating their banks?
The states know better than some dumb bureaucrat in Foggy Bottom
what scams the banks are engaged in, they should regulate them.
I've seen the youtube vid your referring to and it's lifted out of context.
Unless your willing to spell out all of the connections like I did here,
all your doing is throwing biased talking points around.
I'll give you that one. But, I didn't see conservatives voting against
Bush or other Republicans in large numbers for the 200 or 2004
elections. They chose to stand with the RINO's and that's what matters.
Now that they are out of power the "real" conservatives that you
seem to think aren't Republicans can have a chance to clean up
the Republican party. Go to it! You can start with Rush aka Addict
the evangelicals that want to violate the constitutional separation
of church and state are just one of the many stinky fish in the
Republican party. I personally feel that they are the worst, however,
far in excess of the compromised RINOs.
I'm sure you are. I think that Obama is well aware of that danger,
though. I certainly will freely admit that not all of his people are.
We will have to see what happens here.
Yup, anti-regulation. as in no regulations on the banks. Good, good.
They would pay either way. If no stimulus was done the depression would
be far worse. Did you know that for a while there they were talking about
letting money markets collapse but at the last minute the government stepped
in and stopped that? That would have been rich. money markets are the
only accounts in most 401K's that specifically have NO risk. I guess
someone realized at the last minute that if we allow all the 401K's to be
completely defaulted then we might as well put everyone on the dole.
Read up on the Great Depression. It wasn't until the government
pumped a lot of stimulus money into the economy that the economy
started to recover. WWII completed the recovery, but today, we don't
have the luxury of starting another war.
Equating torture of a single guy over a period of a few days, who has
a small amount of easily verifyable information to the
systematic torturing that was going on for months and years at Girab
and Gitmo and other CIA secret prisons we don't know about is
rediculous. Espically when so many of them were never charged
and let go after they figured out that they didn't know anything.
Don't kid yourselves. If McCain hadn't selected a bimbo for a running
mate he would have won. He nearly did. You don't realize how many
people are out there who voted against Obama simply because he is
If it had been an old white guy up against McCain, then McCain could
have promised everyone free ice cream and he still would have lost.
Ah, OK that one I see. Basically what we have here is wanting to create
an excuse we can use to apply tariffs to cheap Chinese steel. They don't
a rip about the environment, they just want a way to block free trade.
Sure am. It's not freely voting when someone is standing over you
watching how you vote. I said that and you are ignoring it. I'm
finding your arguments to be quite dishonest.
Do you not understand the concept and the value of "secret ballot"? I
don't think you're that stupid.
Then you know nothing of union retaliation and thuggery. Like I said -
you're not that stupid. There is a reason we have secret ballots.
Don't pretend you don't understand that.
That's funny. And that's why all the unions and the politicians who are
owned by unions are pushing so hard for "card check" - to put the unions
at a disadvantage?
Then that should be addressed as a separate issue. Like I said - two
wrongs don't make a right. When violations occur, then prosecute. But
don't fix it by taking away the right to a secret ballot.
I believe in the free market. You don't. How much money the Walton
family makes has nothing to do with the principles involved.
Do you know how much money George Soros makes? Do you know how much
money Barbra Streisand makes? Do you know how much money Teresa
Heins-Kerry makes? Do you know how much money professional athletes
make? Do you know how much money famous actors make? What are you
proposing? To create a special tax and confiscate their personal
property because they make more money than you think they should?
I do not believe in redistribution of wealth. You do. When you do it
beyond a certain point, those who have the ideas and are willing to take
the risk to lose everything with the hope of profiting, when faced with
the fact that if they *do* succeed, that what they get from their
success will be confiscated (it will be called taxes, but it will
nonetheless be confiscation and theft), then they will quit taking the
risks, and all progress will start. That experiment has been done many
times and fails ever time.
So you want to outlaw WalMarts? Is that it?
I don't think WalMart caused all that.
You just described a socialistic society in which the liberals drove all
business offshore and then have to force more socialism to "fix" the
problem. IOW - we need more of what caused the original problem to fix
We're about to go the next step with that with cap and trade - and all
based on false science. The march to European socialism continues.
Then great - they should voluntarily do that. But to legislate it is
not people operating in a free market.
I object to card check on principle. I know that principle means little
to people these days. All people these days care about is mandating and
legislating to get a desired result - free will and fundamental
principles be damned.
I'll believe you are sincere when I hear you pusing to have George
Soros's and professional athletess money confiscated and redistributed
by legislation. Again, it would be a violation of principle.
And you just contradicted yourself. At the beginning of this post you
said "The reality is that in a secret ballot system the results always
have MORE people voting in support of the union than were willing to
publically sign cards saying they were in support of one."
So which is it. Or do you argue out of both sides of your mouth
depending on what the specific point you're trying to make at the moment is?
Then fix that part of the problem. Don't fix what you consider a
violation of one right by violating a different right. That's just stupid.
You're so FOS. You are putting words in my nouth. I was including the
TARP money too. Your dishonesty never stops.
And about your "Republican talking points" b.s. - that's just a
diversion to keep from staying on the topic. If every Republican says
that stop signs are reds and shaped octagonally, that does not meant
that stop signs are not red and not shaped octagonally.
That's just a liberal talking point. (see what I mean?)
Fact is that cutting taxes increases what gets collected in taxes.
Overall wealth increases.
No - proper regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac would have been a
good thing. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
But not by secret ballot. And I don't buy your claim that secret ballot
results in more people voting for unionization and having a union thug
stand over you while you vote causes more people to vote against
Having trouble following that, but freedom is always the answer.
So we go to socialism and redistribution of wealth and the government
micromanaging businesses and the economy. Sorry - disagree on principle.
Oh really? Well, the answer is not the government micromanaging
everything - that is what got us where we are. With what the socialists
have in mind, it will be what you described to an extreme. Been proven
So it's not good enough that card check is wrong on principle. Because
the Chamber of Commerce says the stop sign is red and octagonal, the
stop sign couldn't possibly be red and octagonal. I get the picture.
You ain't seen nothin' yet. Let's see what Obama's Chrysler comes up
with in the way of viable products that the consumer is just clamoring
to buy. The thing that drags down the quality of life for everyone is
the government micromanaging every aspect of our lives. Wait until we
have cap and trade.
So who would you have make those decisions of who "lives" and who
"dies"? Who decides how much money Soros or Streisand or you or me
keeps? And based on what - political ideology?
The more free the market is allowed to be, the less gaming of the
artificial restraints there can be.
Research how Raines made 90 million in 6 years by gaming the Fannie Mae
system based not on free market rules but by artificial crap created by
government. Then come back and tell me what's wrong with the system.
Then we disagree on that.
Research the bundling of toxic debt. CRA was a huge factor.
People who had no business getting loans for houses they couldn't afford
got loans for houses they couldn't afford - period.
I don't know - but I highly suspect that you're cherry picking your
You mean like that the Democrats wouldn't allow proper regulation of
Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac?
Nice try. You and I both know what socialism is.
And your point is...?
That's a liberal talking point.
Instead the bureaucrat forced them to make loans that regular good
business practices would have said not to do.
You do yourself a dis-service with that kind of statement.
To you the whole Constitution is a Republican talking point.
The Constitution does not say what liberals like to imply what it says
about church and state by the use of the loaded phrase "separation of
church and state".
I dare you to quote what the Constitution says on the subject and then
show how it says anything like what you and the liberals claim it says.
Basically you and they are FOS on the subject of what the Constitution
says on that.
We've covered that already. You're dishonest.
Are you talking about the billions that mysteriously poured out of money
markets within a couple of hours in September that the press doesn't
talk about? Who was behind that? Soros?
That would have been rich. money markets are the
The stimulus money prolonged it. WWII ended it. I know - Republican
talking point. Thought I'd say it before you did.
You are ignorant on the subject. A bombing in CA was stopped because
they waterboarded the guy. They only had hours to prevent it. So now,
if a similar situation would happen again, hundreds or thousands would
die. Thank you President Obama.
And of course *NO-ONE* voted *for* Obama because he was black, did they.
Orders of magnitudes more than voted against him for that reason.
Again - you do yourself a dis-service by such comments against Sara
Palin. Why is it liberals always do that when they disagree with
someone? Seems like they can't let their arguments stand on their own.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
(snip, snip, snip)
just a word or two here.
First, 12 years ago i was a offset printer (i've since had 2 pounds of
surgical steel wrapped around my spine so i can't do it anymore) and
when someone brought up unions my first question was " what about
those of us who decide not to join even though the union may get
implimented?" That question still hasn't been answered. (yeah i admit
it i'm an anarchist. I believe that each community should decide on
what is best for itself, no state or federal overlords needed) So if
someone wants to be in a union, sure go for it, but don't drag me
Second, a couple of things need to be clarified. seperation of church
and state as expresed by Ted didn't come into it's own until the early
to mid 1800's, and then it was because the protastants were afraid of
the catholics taking over. Reading does wonders sometimes. The
Constitutional clause merely states that the federal govt. cannot
choose one religion over another, yep that's right they are all equal.
imagine that. Also on democrate vs. republican. You do know that the
US wasn't a two party state until the late 1800's? right... or do i
need to go into the federals/republican/whigs ect
Third, obama and macain and "x" are the same. They are after politcal
power no matter the party. Look at it this way, capitalism looks
grerat on paper, for that matter so does socialism, but people don't
seem to be able to control themselves and greed is a nasty trait. Be
it greed for money, power or whatever. That's why things are they way
they are. I wish we had another roy rogers today, someone to point out
human failings and keep us honest...
Well, I have a proposal for that but I don't think you will like it much.
For any business that unionizes, employees who wish to opt-out of
the union may do so. Since they are opting-out, they no longer
fall under the collective bargaining agreement and thus any additional
wage or benefit increases negotiated by the union, they won't get.
I told you, you wouldn't like it.
If you really don't like unions, then become a manager.
Yes it does. Here's a quote for you:
"when church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not
all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded
no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."
I imagine you think that quote was made by a secular leader. No,
sorry, it was by the Rev. Isaac Backus, the most prominent
Baptist minister in New England in his day
I imagine you also think this quote dates from the early to mid 1800's
Sorry, it dates from 1773.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the separation of church
and state principle. As you say, reading does wonders.
How much percent did Ross Perot poll? There's always been plenty
of political partys and even in recent years 3rd parties have been
powerful enough to act as spoilers at times. Particularly in state
Why is this a problem? It just means they are ambitious and people
who aren't ambitions certainly aren't going to be running for President.
Would you rather have a President so unambitious that he spends
4 hours a day kicked back smoking weed?
The problem is what they do with that political power after they get it,
whether they misuse it or not.
Things were a LOT worse a few centuries ago. People may
be greedy, they may be lazy, they may be ignorant. But, the
majority of them do want to do what is right, and do understand
what good and evil are. If they didn't, we would still have
slavery and all the rest of the bad things in history.
Of course, this is speaking mainly for Westernized societies.
Russia is an enigma - but Russians are a lot closer to Westernized
thought than they are to Eastern thought. Give them another
century and they will be just like us.
Eastern thought is rather radically different but they are
starting to understand, adapt, and adopt.
African societies are mostly a mess, but that's to be expected
considering what the rest of the world has done to Africa over
the years. However, at the least, we aren't being troubled by
suicide bombers out of that continent so they have some idea
of what is right, at least. And, they are making progress, and
they WANT to make progress.
The Mid East, though, those societies are mostly no different
than they were 2000 years ago, and that -includes- Israel. I
personally feel that that area of the world is the millstone around
the rest of the world's neck. It is very ironic as the Mid East is
the birth location of human civilization. There was a time many
thousands of years ago where humanity was far, far more advanced
there, than anywhere else in the world, and was higher than
any other humans anywhere else. Today, their attitudes to
people, to each other, to the rest of the world - to them, life
is meaningless, cheap, and expendable. It is no wonder that
Jesus came from there, nowhere else had a greater need. And
as for progress, that area is retarding, not advancing - and the
people there are perfectly happy about it.
Not so. I like it and have done just that as did many others who voted
against a union. Why should we pay some dumb ass greedy union leader
tons of money when we already have great wages and benefits and a nice
place to work with great managers?
On Thu, 7 May 2009 00:20:13 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
been there along with owner. your missing some things here. If workers
deserve better wages ( be it from skill or standard of living or
whatever) then they should get those wages. The problem isn't unions
or managers per se, but the reasons for thier need. get an honest and
good manager/owner and you don't need a union. Then again these days
that's like finding chicken lips.
and?? you still can't see the forest for the trees. Look at it in
context. Those europeans of religious background came here to get away
from the throne and it's decision to back one religion over others.
There was never any problem with say the ten commandment, just the
idea that the federal govt. should back any relgion. Hence the
problems many had with kennedy, it wasn't so much his views as the
fear of giving the catholic church access to the white house. I happen
to agree with the founding fathers. If you want to believe fine do so
but don't ask the govt. to "sponsor" your religion over others. They
are all equal like all men.
You should also note we are not nor ever were a democracy. The list of
anti democracy quotes are rather long.
moot. In the past when we have had three or four parties they all got
equal time, everywhere. The no long have that option since the two big
parties have begun to push the weight around.
my problem is that it's aquision of power for powers sake. Not yours
or mine or my neighbor down the street. Power corrupts and absolute
power currupts abslolutly.
it wasn't as bad as you make it sound. Yes there were robber barons.
but, that also was caused by a pooling of power. Unless the power is
left in the hands of the people it will begin to "pool" around whoever
can snatch it fastest. yeah i'm a cynic about everything.
no they won't. I have certain advantages here. I deal with russions.
My church is russian. I understand the slavonic mind. To a russian,
it's those who can't control themselves and be happy with life as it
is that cause the problems. (very simplified). The russians do have an
eastern mindset that they developed from byzatine. It's not based in
science, or power, or money but living in harmony with everything.As
they have lost that and become more western their society has begun to
collapse. Many of them upon comming back here from visiting family
over there have said the same things. People are looking to go back
and are very upset with western ideaology.
also a mistaken position. In the eastern thought process it's polite
to say yes while doing it your own way. So you see one thing and they
are doing another.
agreed. There it's mass graves, rapes, and the stealing of relief from
other countries to pay for guns and ammo for the warlords.
actually isreal is a "new" country. Was established in 1968. and they
displaced (nice word for killed and forced the locals to move) the
people living there (that would be the palastiens)
Someone wrote: "First, 12 years ago i was a offset printer (i've since had
2 pounds of surgical steel wrapped around my spine so i can't do it anymore)
and when someone brought up unions my first question was " what about those
of us who decide not to join even though the union may get implimented?"
That question still hasn't been answered. (yeah i admit it i'm an anarchist.
I believe that each community should decide on what is best for itself, no
state or federal overlords needed) So if someone wants to be in a union,
sure go for it, but don't drag me along."
I guess the answer to that would be depending on what state you live in. 22
states have a right to work. Right to work you are not required to join the
union to work there. The other states require you to join if the shop is
>been there along with owner. your missing some things here. If workers
>deserve better wages ( be it from skill or standard of living or
>whatever) then they should get those wages. The problem isn't unions
>or managers per se, but the reasons for thier need. get an honest and
>good manager/owner and you don't need a union. Then again these days
>that's like finding chicken lips.
There needs to be a balance between the needs of the business and the
needs of the workers. When either side tips the balance their way
problems exist. A greedy union can gain too much power and destroy a
company just as much as a greedy business owner.
Funny thing though peter pan/jiff - Ted's statement is a lie. He always
says things like that and never acknowledges when I continually prove
Also - I'll put my history on this ng up against yours any day. I am
generally engaging in technical car discussions. The only time I go
political is when trolls such as yourself, who do nothing but talk
politics, say stupid things (frequently) that need to be challenged.
I also notice that when it comes down to actually discussing the issues,
you get into name calling and insults - never willing to actually
discuss the issue. Funny thing about that - that's what trolls do.
Has Obama negotiated the Taliban out of Pakistan yet? They declared
Sharia law in the region they took over this week. Nice, eh? And did
you hear that, with a straight face, he is asking Israel to give up its
nuclear weapons. You can't make this stuff up.
Anyway, you have a wonderful day, peter pan/jiff.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.