Conservatives Trying to Ruin More American Jobs (aka Listen to Craig234 lecture)

Status
Not open for further replies.
b_panther_g

b_panther_g

Audioholic
So is it the general consensus here that…It’s good to export American jobs because unions are bad? If so, I disagree.

I don’t think it’s good to export American jobs. What will those American workers do? Wait a minute. I know…

Walmart is hiring for minimum wage, right? The dock workers and drivers can just take a $30,000 to $40,000 pay cut, right? Screw those guys and their families, right? That’s progress and a better America, right?

I think its wrong!:mad:

If the unions are broken - fix them! (I know. I know. I want to actually fix the problem. It's shocking! :eek: )

What happened to law makers with backbones? Pass the unpleasant laws that stop the heads of the union from raping union members, businesses, entire industries, and everyone else. That’s it. Problem solved. But the proposed solution is to…

Potentially decimate an entire American industry because the unions are bad?

Severely cut a segment of the American job market because a handful of men and women at the top of a union are bad?

That seems too extreme and unnecessary IMO.

Just my 2 cents.

Enjoy,
Panther
 
Last edited:
Biscokid

Biscokid

Audioholic
There is a reason some places have higher costs of living....

They are better!!
Better/more jobs
Better social services(I know most of you don't want any)
Better weather
Better educated

Thats why you can live on a few pennies and a potato down south.
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
b_panther_g said:
What happened to law makers with backbones? Pass the unpleasant laws that stop the heads of the union from raping union members, businesses, entire industries, and everyone else.
A believe a certain governor in California tried this by actually requiring some Unions to inform their members on how their dues were being distributed to political organizations and require the members permission.

With some effective campaigining on the unions part, this one went down in flames.

Kudos.

What a wonderful idea, require me to join, take my money, or effectively shut me out of the job market if I don't hop on board. Where do I sign up?
 
b_panther_g

b_panther_g

Audioholic
warhummer said:
...With some effective campaigining on the unions part, this one went down in flames...
Then the answer seems simple. The state needs better campaigning/marketing.

There are more non-union members than there are union members - right? Appeal to the majority of the voters in a language they understand.

And I’ll bet businesses that deal with the unions would only be too happy to help out. With a little convincing, I’ll bet they’d fund an entire infomercial campaign.

Fixing a big problem is not a one shot deal. It takes work.

Enjoy,
Panther
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
When I see proposals such as this, it makes me believe that much more that the politicians are trying to eliminate the middle class. What better way to do it than get rid of their jobs. The more a society relies on it's government the easier it is to control. :mad:

Edit:

The title of the thread is misleading. True conservatives would not vote or conceive a measure such as this. IF there are "conservatives" touting this bill, they are simply masquerading as "conservatives". Wolves in sheeps clothing.
 
C

Craig234

Audioholic
Clint DeBoer said:
You are funny. Those are some of the most pleasant places to live in the US. Only a person who's never left the city would criticize places like Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alaska, etc... You're entitled to your opinion, but don't be so publicly ignorant - it's embarrassing.
I'm not funny in this post. First, as to ignorance, I've been to every one of these places except Alaska - and Alaska is not a 'typical' economic situation, it's the closest to an 'orange' amongst the apples for comparison. So, no ignorance, just ignorance from you in your mistaken assumption.

I've also been to the states topping the lists which you did not include - you cherry picked and left off Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

[Edit: So, apparently YOU can use "etc", but when I do it it's cherry-picking. - Clint]

You have a right to your opinion, but be intellectualy honest enough not to distort the facts by excluding the ones you want to. It's embarrassing.

Now, the discussion is also not about 'pleasantness', a pretty subjective thing, but about the economics. I hate to brak the news to you, but a whole lot more people who have the money to live where they want prefer New York and California to the states in that list, and when you ask which states are more powerful economically by most measures - the relevant issue to see the effects of the topics under discussion - you see the answer.

While those states may have some 'pleasantness' to some, they are some of the most backwards economically, in spending on culture, services, etc. People have the good steaks at Peter Luger's and a Broadway show in New York, and the hash browns 'scattered, covered, etc.' at Waffle House and enjoy a drive through the endless undeveloped space looking for a bookstore or movie theatre (daring not to hope for an art film house) in the south.

My right-wing father just retired and moved from the suburbs of Los Angeles to a right-wing community named Hysperia in the desert of California, where prices are low, and he loves it as a place where people leave each other the heck alone, and the government is neigh-invisible, little government development or services, just chain stores. What can I say? It's 'pleasant' for some - but not economically wealthy from 'low unions' etc.

An ounce of common sense: higher union wages have an upwards effect on wages for others, too. One factor: they can spend more, to your pocket.

Yes, good things did arise from those movements. However, like all good ideas turned sour, people in charge lose sight of why they are there and the union becomes a parasite, sucking its members of their hard earned wages.

Here's a novel idea: Good companies don't need unions. Get the MBA-toting retards with no "shop" experience out on the floor to really see how a company is run.
There's some truth to that. Any large system, however, has some inefficiencies and corruption. You can talk all day about the 'efficiences' of the private sector, the question is whether you pay attention to the real world and recognize the inefficiencies in it, the gaming for profit, the need for various regulatory oversite to prevent the greed causing inefficient thieving behavior, etc. I already mentioned the mafia role in unions as an example too.

But as for your second statement, I think you are confusing cause and effect. What makes a company choose to act 'good'? I'm going to suggest that the unions were the way out of the huge inequality in power previously which left workers largely on poverty sustinence with no say - unions gave them the leverage such that companies had to start acting 'good', and then the cultures changed to where the unions aren't needed.

It's important to understand that, to know when they are and aren't needed, rather than to just look at the *effect* and say gee, the answer is for companies to just decide to be nice and not know how to cause it. A century ago, a company hardly had the luxury to act 'nice' when the competitor had workers in poverty working 16x6 in unsafe (i.e., low-overhead) conditions; that was not the way to make profit.

The issue today is globalization as too many workers are competing head-on with workers overseas who can live on $10 a day.

While that has some economic benefit for some consumers, and in the short term for some owners as the cash built up from the US union culture gets spent on such cheap goods, and even the public short-sightedly revels in its consumer power, and one long-term trend is helpful in the overseas markets being somewht enriched, the direction is set towards a decline for the US, from its transfer of wealth in huge trade deficits, to the borrowing our nation is doing for debt down the road for the public, and the economic benefits to the overseas markets seem to me more likely to benefit overseas businesses (including the multi-nationals who so much have bought our own political system) than the US - and that if anything, our precious democracy is somewhat endangered as nations without such democracy are made more and more powerful. In the long run, we're raising some danger to our being able to afford to keep ours, which suits big businesses who don't like the public having the power to pass laws over them pretty well.

A believe a certain governor in California tried this by actually requiring some Unions to inform their members on how their dues were being distributed to political organizations and require the members permission.
Let's look at the real issue. If you look at the issue in isolation, it doesn't look too good. So let's put it in context.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar represents corrupt big business. He's a crook. He ran on a campaign of saying he's independantly wealthy and so he doesn't need the corrupting special interest donations. He then turned around and defined only the democrats' donors as special interests and excluded all business donations, and after having criticized his predecessor democrat for taking too many donations, he is taking something like twice as much now.

On a personal level, the man went to the trouble to form a front company in Nevada to buy a plane, to avoid paying the state he loves any sales tax.

He was in with Ken Lay and Enron, one of the few who were invited to attend a special planning meeting at the height of the California crisis.

The only politcal power in CA which has been able to challenge him are the unions. For example, when Arnold took $2B from the school budgets for his own uses and promised it was just a loan, he then quietly didn't pay it back, until the teachers' union funded a tv campaign, and for the first time his poll numbers dropped, with the fundning to counter his corporate-paid PR. He went on to lose a set of initiatives, hurting him politically - and now has agreed to pay the $2B back after all as he tries to get back some political points for his upcoming election in November.

The whole union issue you mention was nothing but his attempt to de-power his main political threat and had nothing to do with 'doing the right thing'.

Annakui: the thing to keep your eye on is the short-sighted need corporations have to hit quarterly profit and growth numbers. They aren't evil, but they have to compete, and the easiest way if often harfmul to society, leaving them few choices. What we need is government leadership from the public, representing the public, pushing a big picture economic agenda to help society, as we did with FDR/Truman/Eisenhower policies that paved the way for the middle class (and everyone - this was the era when Kennedy was right to say a rising tide lifts all boats. Times have changed: since Reagan, in 25 years, the middle class has been flat in income in real dollars and losing its percent of wealth owned in huge amounts to the top 1%).

But what we have instead are the corporations buying the government who let the corporations then set the policies, and they are all too often against the public interest.

One industry needs more freedom to pollute without paying for the costs, another needs more subsidies, another needs more exceptions to pay lower wages, and so on.

Those work for the next quarter's numbers and rob the country of future wealth.

Well said, Biscokid and Panther.
 
Last edited:
Francious70

Francious70

Senior Audioholic
I have no idea what's going on here, but I can tell you as a man from Lousisana now in Tennessee, I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. Yes we may have one of the worst educational systems in the nation, yes we may prefer open land to conjestion and "art houses", yes we may be *** backwards in your mind. I believer that most of whom I call "city dwellers" are *** backwards. Who in their right mind would want to live in poverty stricken, crime ridden, over-populated NYS or CA? Give me 100 acres of forest with a house and a Wal*Mart 20 minutes from home.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
Francious70 said:
I have no idea what's going on here, but I can tell you as a man from Lousisana now in Tennessee, I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. Yes we may have one of the worst educational systems in the nation, yes we may prefer open land to conjestion and "art houses", yes we may be *** backwards in your mind. I believer that most of whom I call "city dwellers" are *** backwards. Who in their right mind would want to live in poverty stricken, crime ridden, over-populated NYS or CA? Give me 100 acres of forest with a house and a Wal*Mart 20 minutes from home.
Lots of room up here in Canada. Big lots, small pop. I'm loving it. :D

SheepStar
 
C

Craig234

Audioholic
Taxes

Francious, the topic isn't whether the states with the right-wing policies are nice places to live for reasons unrelated to those policies - the topic was whether those policies stimulate business and the economy. The right was suggesting that the most 'liberal' states harm business and the economy by those policies - so I compared how much business productivity and other such measures there are in the most liberal and the most conservative states.

It's clear that the most energetic economies are the ones with the policies that right-wing theory says should be crippled economically.

And it's clear that the states with the most right-wing policies have some of the least active economies, the fewest services, etc.

That was the topic - not judging the states on unrelated issues.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Craig234 said:
I'm not funny in this post. First, as to ignorance, I've been to every one of these places except Alaska - and Alaska is not a 'typical' economic situation, it's the closest to an 'orange' amongst the apples for comparison. So, no ignorance, just ignorance from you in your mistaken assumption.

I've also been to the states topping the lists which you did not include - you cherry picked and left off Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

You have a right to your opinion, but be intellectualy honest enough not to distort the facts by excluding the ones you want to. It's embarrassing.

Now, the discussion is also not about 'pleasantness', a pretty subjective thing, but about the economics. I hate to brak the news to you, but a whole lot more people who have the money to live where they want prefer New York and California to the states in that list, and when you ask which states are more powerful economically by most measures - the relevant issue to see the effects of the topics under discussion - you see the answer.

While those states may have some 'pleasantness' to some, they are some of the most backwards economically, in spending on culture, services, etc. People have the good steaks at Peter Luger's and a Broadway show in New York, and the hash browns 'scattered, covered, etc.' at Waffle House and enjoy a drive through the endless undeveloped space looking for a bookstore or movie theatre (daring not to hope for an art film house) in the south.

My right-wing father just retired and moved from the suburbs of Los Angeles to a right-wing community named Hysperia in the desert of California, where prices are low, and he loves it as a place where people leave each other the heck alone, and the government is neigh-invisible, little government development or services, just chain stores. What can I say? It's 'pleasant' for some - but not economically wealthy from 'low unions' etc.

An ounce of common sense: higher union wages have an upwards effect on wages for others, too. One factor: they can spend more, to your pocket.



There's some truth to that. Any large system, however, has some inefficiencies and corruption. You can talk all day about the 'efficiences' of the private sector, the question is whether you pay attention to the real world and recognize the inefficiencies in it, the gaming for profit, the need for various regulatory oversite to prevent the greed causing inefficient thieving behavior, etc. I already mentioned the mafia role in unions as an example too.

But as for your second statement, I think you are confusing cause and effect. What makes a company choose to act 'good'? I'm going to suggest that the unions were the way out of the huge inequality in power previously which left workers largely on poverty sustinence with no say - unions gave them the leverage such that companies had to start acting 'good', and then the cultures changed to where the unions aren't needed.

It's important to understand that, to know when they are and aren't needed, rather than to just look at the *effect* and say gee, the answer is for companies to just decide to be nice and not know how to cause it. A century ago, a company hardly had the luxury to act 'nice' when the competitor had workers in poverty working 16x6 in unsafe (i.e., low-overhead) conditions; that was not the way to make profit.

The issue today is globalization as too many workers are competing head-on with workers overseas who can live on $10 a day.

While that has some economic benefit for some consumers, and in the short term for some owners as the cash built up from the US union culture gets spent on such cheap goods, and even the public short-sightedly revels in its consumer power, and one long-term trend is helpful in the overseas markets being somewht enriched, the direction is set towards a decline for the US, from its transfer of wealth in huge trade deficits, to the borrowing our nation is doing for debt down the road for the public, and the economic benefits to the overseas markets seem to me more likely to benefit overseas businesses (including the multi-nationals who so much have bought our own political system) than the US - and that if anything, our precious democracy is somewhat endangered as nations without such democracy are made more and more powerful. In the long run, we're raising some danger to our being able to afford to keep ours, which suits big businesses who don't like the public having the power to pass laws over them pretty well.



Let's look at the real issue. If you look at the issue in isolation, it doesn't look too good. So let's put it in context.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar represents corrupt big business. He's a crook. He ran on a campaign of saying he's independantly wealthy and so he doesn't need the corrupting special interest donations. He then turned around and defined only the democrats' donors as special interests and excluded all business donations, and after having criticized his predecessor democrat for taking too many donations, he is taking something like twice as much now.

On a personal level, the man went to the trouble to form a front company in Nevada to buy a plane, to avoid paying the state he loves any sales tax.

He was in with Ken Lay and Enron, one of the few who were invited to attend a special planning meeting at the height of the California crisis.

The only politcal power in CA which has been able to challenge him are the unions. For example, when Arnold took $2B from the school budgets for his own uses and promised it was just a loan, he then quietly didn't pay it back, until the teachers' union funded a tv campaign, and for the first time his poll numbers dropped, with the fundning to counter his corporate-paid PR. He went on to lose a set of initiatives, hurting him politically - and now has agreed to pay the $2B back after all as he tries to get back some political points for his upcoming election in November.

The whole union issue you mention was nothing but his attempt to de-power his main political threat and had nothing to do with 'doing the right thing'.

Annakui: the thing to keep your eye on is the short-sighted need corporations have to hit quarterly profit and growth numbers. They aren't evil, but they have to compete, and the easiest way if often harfmul to society, leaving them few choices. What we need is government leadership from the public, representing the public, pushing a big picture economic agenda to help society, as we did with FDR/Truman/Eisenhower policies that paved the way for the middle class (and everyone - this was the era when Kennedy was right to say a rising tide lifts all boats. Times have changed: since Reagan, in 25 years, the middle class has been flat in income in real dollars and losing its percent of wealth owned in huge amounts to the top 1%).

But what we have instead are the corporations buying the government who let the corporations then set the policies, and they are all too often against the public interest.

One industry needs more freedom to pollute without paying for the costs, another needs more subsidies, another needs more exceptions to pay lower wages, and so on.

Those work for the next quarter's numbers and rob the country of future wealth.

Well said, Biscokid and Panther.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...oh ...uh, yeah, thanks for yet another verbose lecture, Craig234. At least you've grown beyond calling us all "cows". Thanks for that.

I see you're still trying to paint reality with the color of your morality. I'll say this, your knowledge of contemporary affairs is reasonably well rounded. But your understanding of history is tinted largely by your biases. YOU cherry pick your data with the best of them...all to justify your left-wing approach to life. You don't wish to debate or learn. You seemingly only enjoy only the sound of your own intransigent political jingling.

Open minds are such wonderful things. Seen any lately?
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
rjbudz said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...oh ...uh, yeah, thanks for yet another verbose lecture, Craig234. At least you've grown beyond calling us all "cows". Thanks for that.

I see you're still trying to paint reality with the color of your morality. I'll say this, your knowledge of contemporary affairs is reasonably well rounded. But your understanding of history is tinted largely by your biases. YOU cherry pick your data with the best of them...all to justify your left-wing approach to life. You don't wish to debate or learn. You seemingly only enjoy only the sound of your own intransigent political jingling.

Open minds are such wonderful things. Seen any lately?

Is there supposed to be a rebuttal to any of the points he made amidst the semi-compliments and veiled insults? :confused: :rolleyes: :D
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
cyberbri said:
Is there supposed to be a rebuttal to any of the points he made amidst the semi-compliments and veiled insults? :confused: :rolleyes: :D
Why, Bri, how can I rebutt such incontrovertible fact? ;)

Besides, I don't wish to stimulate another 3,000 word essay, nor do I wish to attempt to have a reasoned dialogue with a person who apparently already knows everything.

Veiled?! LOL. Do you believe respect should be bestowed upon someone who has called others on this forum (that he is 'lecturing' to) "cows" and "children" as Craig234 did? He has basically said we're buried in ignorance? That's arrogance, Brian, not grist for enlightened debate.

I would hope that you could recognize that behavior for what it is, and put aside for a minute the fact that he lives on the same political street as you.
 
T

The Dukester

Audioholic Chief
Sheep said:
Lots of room up here in Canada. Big lots, small pop. I'm loving it. :D

SheepStar


It would be all good, but it's too dang cold:eek:
 
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Back in the mid 90's I was the engineer in charge of building a container terminal in Jarkarta Indonesia (Tanjun Priok). During testing of some of the largest quay cranes ever built (40 tonne load at the end of a 300 foot boom). The local crane operator was plucking containers off of a double parked super post panamax container ship (8000 teu/ 150 foot beam) and depositing it on a waiting trailer at the rate of one per minute. I was thinking this guy could make a fortune in the states and spoke to him about it. Turns out he got paid by the number of units moved, not by the hour. He was already a rich Indonesian by US standards of rich, whereas because of unions he would have made about 1/3 that in the states (by his estimation - currency conversion included).

On the flip side, my wife being a professional musician (cello), I can see where the union helps. Very good money from gigging.

Notice how the flip side story is significantly shorter!
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
Craig234 said:
I'm not funny in this post. First, as to ignorance, I've been to every one of these places except Alaska - and Alaska is not a 'typical' economic situation, it's the closest to an 'orange' amongst the apples for comparison. So, no ignorance, just ignorance from you in your mistaken assumption.
Well I have been to Alaska, along with some of the state's populations you so summarily dimiss as inferior to yourself, and I can tell you that some of the criteria you use to bash Alabama and Mississippi also shows up there.

Craig234 said:
My right-wing father just retired and moved from the suburbs of Los Angeles to a right-wing community named Hysperia in the desert of California, where prices are low, and he loves it as a place where people leave each other the heck alone, and the government is neigh-invisible, little government development or services, just chain stores. What can I say? It's 'pleasant' for some - but not economically wealthy from 'low unions' etc.
Now I know why he moved....

Craig234 said:
An ounce of common sense: higher union wages have an upwards effect on wages for others, too. One factor: they can spend more, to your pocket.
An ounce of reality. If I was an electrician trying to start a business in New Jersey, and if I didn't join the union, I would have the local Brownshirts standing out in front harassing anyone and everyone who walked by (there are actually pictures of this from an incident which happened near my old hometown a few years ago). Hmmm, what else? Oh yeah I forgot to mention the thugs who slashed the tires on my parents car. It happened to be the same make and model as the owner's of a new grocery store whose employees weren't unionized (horror of horrors, they actually voted NOT to unionize). That's New Jersey for ya. Maybe the new proposed sales tax increase will help.

Craig234 said:
The issue today is globalization as too many workers are competing head-on with workers overseas who can live on $10 a day.
Wow, you mean that American companies will have to use initiative and creativity to compete successfully on the world stage? I know, let's demand a minimum of $60,000 per year for all with free health care for life. That's utopian enough for me.

Craig234 said:
Arnold Schwarzeneggar represents corrupt big business. He's a crook.
I dare you to say that to his face...alone in a locked room. :)

Craig234 said:
On a personal level, the man went to the trouble to form a front company in Nevada to buy a plane, to avoid paying the state he loves any sales tax.
Why do you think that is? Must be the low tax rate. My wife formed a front company, I mean an LLC to avoid paying out the nose in income taxes. Oh yeah, it's legal too.

Craig234 said:
He was in with Ken Lay and Enron, one of the few who were invited to attend a special planning meeting at the height of the California crisis.
I smell a conspiracy.... :eek:

Craig234 said:
The whole union issue you mention was nothing but his attempt to de-power his main political threat and had nothing to do with 'doing the right thing'.
Sounds like a vote to abolish government. I mean according to your line of thinking, political candidates must have a secret brain-altering surgery performed by the evil corporations and globalists right after they win an election. So, if there's no government, how can big business keep the heel of its boot on our necks?

Well, that about sums up my trite response. Now, back to enjoying the rest of my leave while I suckle from the teat that is the socialist military/government system, all the while getting paid for surfing some internet forum.

Just remember, this is YOUR tax dollars at work here folks. Keep 'em coming; I need some new shoes.
 
C

Craig234

Audioholic
Warrunner

Warrunner, you get off to a bad start, completely misrepresenting what I said from your first sentence.

"...along with some of the state's populations you so summarily dimiss as inferior to yourself..."

I'll just repeat what I already said to someone who did the same thing to a lesser degree, which you apparently either did not read:

Francious, the topic isn't whether the states with the right-wing policies are nice places to live for reasons unrelated to those policies - the topic was whether those policies stimulate business and the economy. The right was suggesting that the most 'liberal' states harm business and the economy by those policies - so I compared how much business productivity and other such measures there are in the most liberal and the most conservative states.

It's clear that the most energetic economies are the ones with the policies that right-wing theory says should be crippled economically.

And it's clear that the states with the most right-wing policies have some of the least active economies, the fewest services, etc.

That was the topic - not judging the states on unrelated issues.
Or, for your even greater lack of reading comprehension, it's not for judging the people, either. What's next - I insulted their state birds?

Now I know why he moved....
So do I, having just explained it - and it remains the fact that the issue we're discussing, the effect of the 'liberal' versus 'conservative' measures, that the results are inconsistent with the economic engine predicted for the 'conservative' measures, the opposite pretty much.

For you guys, it seems a shack in the middle of nowhere, where you have no government, no services, and hunt for your food is paradise.

That doesn't make your policies have the results you claim for wonderful, thriving economies however - the liberal policies have those results.

An ounce of reality. [Anecdote of tire-slashing by union deleted]
I think you overrated that as an ounce. Your commentary on the economics of unions is to tell a story of one tire-slashing?

Wow, there are no stories of anyone on your side doing wrong. Fine argument.

I'd say 'ounce of ideology' is more accurate, when you are filled with an irrational passion for 'your side' and you turn an anecdote about a petty crime by the other side into an argument that somehow the economic function of unions is wrong as a result.

When unions were coming up, organizers bashed in heads; companies hired troops who shot (peaceful) organizers, too.

That sort of violence has a lot more to do with a struggle for power by each side than with the pros and cons of unions.

The simple fact of unions is that they provide bargaining power through unity, with the overhead of the union organization.

You won't find the pros and cons discussed inyour post, though. Just an irrelevant petty crime which has nothing to say on the issue.

Other than to explain, perhaps, your anger towards unions as being personal.

Wow, you mean that American companies will have to use initiative and creativity to compete successfully on the world stage? I know, let's demand a minimum of $60,000 per year for all with free health care for life. That's utopian enough for me.
If I ever wondered how someone could be offered "Under plan A, you will get X; under plan B you will get 40% more", and foolishly choose plan A, I now know. You simply mock plan B because it isn't 100% more, and call the 100% figure utopian. It really goes beyond the mild word 'irrational'. It's actively pursuing the worst option and not just ignoring the evidence, but misrepresenting it in a very one-sided manner.

It's a little funny the way that the topic of unions can make some people hop up and down, turn red, and speak in tongues while frothing.

I dare you to say that to [Arnold Schwarzeneggar's] face...alone in a locked room.
Set it up, and another fine argument by you.

[On Schwarzeneggar avoiding CA taxes by using a tax dodge to buy a plane in NV]Why do you think that is? Must be the low tax rate. My wife formed a front company, I mean an LLC to avoid paying out the nose in income taxes. Oh yeah, it's legal too.
You confuse legal and ethical. You also confuse the role of public leaders to uphold a bit higher standard. It's legal for companies to avoid paying millions and millions by setting up a box in the Cayman Islands, while they continue to enjoy the benefits of their people living in the US, benefits paid for by others' tax dollars. Congress should fix that, but the political donations have blocked that.

(Enforcement of tax laws against the wealthy has plummeted with GWB, read David Cay Johnston's book for details that should upset you).

But it's just an anecdote - you can't really complain about an anecdote after your tire-slashing story to summarize the issue of unions.

Craig234 wrote:"He was in with Ken Lay and Enron, one of the few who were invited to attend a special planning meeting at the height of the California crisis."

I smell a conspiracy....
Read these.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold08182003.html
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/13.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/08/11/enron/index.html

Here, I'll excerpt from one for you.

August 11, 2003 | Arnold's secret meeting with Kenny Boy If you're compiling a list of public figures even less popular in California than Gray Davis, one name is likely to top it: former Enron chairman Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. Voters in the Golden State are behaving like sheep these days, but even the dimmest of them can probably remember how Enron and the other corporate vultures descended on them during the electricity "crisis" of 2001.

What California voters may no longer remember, however, is that after the third wave of rolling blackouts hit their state, Kenny Boy quietly summoned a select group to the Beverly Hills Hotel on May 11, 2001. And they may also have forgotten that one of the prominent Republicans who showed up at Lay's request was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On June 21, 2001, the Associated Press reported that "Lay met secretly with California Republicans at the Beverly Hills Hotel and pushed a plan that called for ratepayers to pay the billions in debt racked up by the state's public utilities. The plan contended that federal investigations of price gouging are hindering the situation." According to William Bradley, the L.A. Weekly's sharp political columnist who wrote about Enron for the American Prospect, the meeting revolved around Lay's plans to "preserve deregulation" in California. The L.A. Times noted that Lay was seeking the support of Schwarzenegger and the other GOP luminaries for even greater deregulation...
You just go off the deep end here.

I explained that Schwarzeneggar's political efforts to harm the unions, especially the teachers' union, was because the unions have been the one group that has been effective at opposing him politically, leading to the defeat of every one of his ballot measures he fought for, and his approval ratings plummetings over a broken promise to return $2B he took from the school budgets.

You responded with something pretty nuts:

Sounds like a vote to abolish government. I mean according to your line of thinking, political candidates must have a secret brain-altering surgery performed by the evil corporations and globalists right after they win an election. So, if there's no government, how can big business keep the heel of its boot on our necks?
 
JoeE SP9

JoeE SP9

Senior Audioholic
How about this? We build that highway without any exit ramps until you reach Canada. We then direct all illegal aliens to this road and Canada can have them.:cool:
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
I think I'm finished here...

Against my better judgement, I'm firing off one more retort to Professor Craigger. I suppose my tongue-in-cheek rants went unoticed and were summarily and patronizingly dimissed. Though I can understand it's hard to detect sarcastic tones in such a forum by the the culturally haughty.

I guess what I would like to point out is that I deal in realities. I've seen the absolute worst of mankind close-up and have had to continually deal with "academics" and "diplomats" who haven't spent one day of their bourgeoisie lives under the policies and messes that they have created. But that is another story (actually a bunch).

Craig234 said:
I think you overrated that as an ounce. Your commentary on the economics of unions is to tell a story of one tire-slashing?

Wow, there are no stories of anyone on your side doing wrong. Fine argument.

I'd say 'ounce of ideology' is more accurate, when you are filled with an irrational passion for 'your side' and you turn an anecdote about a petty crime by the other side into an argument that somehow the economic function of unions is wrong as a result.
First of all, I don't have a "side". I'm for personal responsibilty (does that make me conservative?). I'm also for helping the little guy (maybe I'm liberal) to deal with bullies and snobs. I'm also not so mentally retarded as to think that one instance of petty crime equates to "Union-Bad! (thump chest)".

You so predictably reaffirmed my assesment of your diatribe and other people of your caliber; condescending and self-aggrandizing to anyone perceived not to be intellectually equal. We sheep need to be lectured to and "informed" when our thoughts and writings don't measure up to some random standard. There is no meaningful debate, just endless barbs and self-perceived witty quips thrown at one another.

Thanks for making me stoop to your level.

Notice I only mentioned the words "conservative" and "liberal" once! :rolleyes: Gold star for me!
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
warhummer said:
Against my better judgement, I'm firing off one more retort to Professor Craigger. I suppose my tongue-in-cheek rants went unoticed and were summarily and patronizingly dimissed. Though I can understand it's hard to detect sarcastic tones in such a forum by the the culturally haughty.

I guess what I would like to point out is that I deal in realities. I've seen the absolute worst of mankind close-up and have had to continually deal with "academics" and "diplomats" who haven't spent one day of their bourgeoisie lives under the policies and messes that they have created. But that is another story (actually a bunch).



First of all, I don't have a "side". I'm for personal responsibilty (does that make me conservative?). I'm also for helping the little guy (maybe I'm liberal) to deal with bullies and snobs. I'm also not so mentally retarded as to think that one instance of petty crime equates to "Union-Bad! (thump chest)".

You so predictably reaffirmed my assesment of your diatribe and other people of your caliber; condescending and self-aggrandizing to anyone perceived not to be intellectually equal. We sheep need to be lectured to and "informed" when are thoughts and writings don't measure up to some random standard. There is no meaningful debate, just endless barbs and self-perceived witty quips thrown at one another.

Thanks for making me stoop to your level.

Notice I only mentioned the words "conservative" and "liberal" once! :rolleyes: Gold star for me!
There ya go, Hummer. What is needed for this situation are more tomatoes (for throwing) and less steaks served to the massah. Welcome to the Anti-Arrogance-And-Pseudo-Intelligence Club! (AAAPIC! ;) ) The person in question is neither worth much of your time nor your explanation...but perhaps more of your derision ... or sympathy depending upon your mood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top