Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like this

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
    avast ye ThorHammer,

    me friend, imma sure we all have friends that tell us heartfelt anecdotes that support whatever arguments each 'o us makes. i think anecdotes be informative and important too....they add bits 'o color and sentiment that i find lackin' in pie charts and graphs.

    that bein' the case though, everythin' i said was true. its statistically proven to be the case both in numerous polls and more importantly, at the ballot box (which is why, by the way, the version 'o Paul Ryan that conservatives on USPO knew and loved absolutely evaporated durin' the election the moment he was nominated fer VPOTUS - alas, it wasn't enough) that conservatives want things, just like them wicked liberals do.

    conservatives want a huge, behemouth 'o a military.
    conservatives wanted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    conservatives want Tricare benefits fer our military to remain sacred.
    conservatives (at least the ones o'er 55) want social security and medicare just as it is.
    conservatives want clean air and water.
    conservatives want heavy Federal Spendin' in public schools K-12.

    and....they want taxes lowered even more.

    that means they want free stuffs.

    *ponders*

    ThorHammer, ye hath stated that yer not a conservative and i accept at yer word, matey...so why are ye so vexed 'bout them observations i made? they're all accurate, and thar be an obvious disconnect goin' on.

    - MeadHallPirate


    -
    I think you don't know what a Conservative is. You confuse Conservatives with Neo Cons.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

      Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
      I did read it several times... you weren't clear. It sounds like you are trying to say that Weyerhauser was wrong for paying more than Unions got out of the other companies. That is how it sounds. Which equates to it sound like you are using Capitalism to support Socialism/Marxism. Unions are inherently socialistic in nature. They are redistribution of wealth based not on your ability and skills but simply because you make less than others, more specifically than management and owners.



      It is not morality to covet anothers wealth so much that you use coercion to get them to give it to you when you have not earned it. It is not decency to call another greedy then make claim to their fruits of their labors in the name of equality. It is not fairness to expect someone to hand over to you what you have not earned nor deserve.

      Considering how often you confuse Republicans with Conservatives you obviously have a left wing agenda and how much you are willing to vilify "Right Wing" thinking you show your left leanings which include Marxism which is part of Socialism.

      As for what socialism is... educate yourself.



      You have confused it with Communism.

      As for the rest of your mish mash... it is a load of Ad-Hominem not logic or rational thinking. You denigrade the author and subject without refuting it.

      You still have not given a supportive answer why unions need to be mandatory.

      Name one thing a union does for a worker that they could not do for themselves.
      Yes, and it was probably not the first time I have NOT been clear. To be clear, I thought it was wrong that the other corporations here wanted the COC to talk down starting wages for Weyerhauser. Just to protect the other lower paying factory jobs here. There were only two factories at the time that were union factories, with the others being non union. Truth is, those other factories were afraid they would lose their employees to Weyerhauser if the starting wages remained with what Weyerhauser was wanting to pay. And this sort of thing was perhaps fairly common here in the South during that time, before NAFTA. But this is how the so called free market for labor has worked here in my own state. It really wasn't free was it? But the free market has never existed except as a concept. This is what my life experience has taught me.

      In my own manufacturing business, I saw dirty tricks played, or they tried to play me, from my competitors, but I won't go into it as it still tends to piss me off. But suffice to say that my wages were above the industry average and this drew the ire, and the dirty tricks from 2 of my competitors who apparently suffered from worker dissatisfaction, due to what these workers made, compared to my own. It would have been so easy to just do as these competitors wished and to have met their wages to avoid conflict between me and them. But, principles have ruled my life, as I was raised that way. After a decade of the dirty tricks, thankfully these two finally gave up, and I only took 5 of their best employees. And since my turnover was non existent, I never was a great threat to them anyways. I guess they had their own principles too, although dirty principles.

      You exclaim that the working people covet the wealth of the owners. That their envy is so great as to want to cause destruction. I don't believe that. I think it is a misrepresentation of these people, yet it is a deeply held, although false belief of some cons. It is their fall back argument. That has not been my own experience at all, and I can only base my opinions upon my own life experience. If I were to believe as you do, I would have utterly ignore my own life's observations. And of course to do that would be hardly sane, or even reasonable.

      The people I have known in my own long life, my employees and the vast number of working people I have personally known, none of them despised the rich, none of them wanted to take away their wealth. All of these people ever wanted was to be treated fairly and to be paid a fair wage for a day's work. Whether you can believe it or not, most working people just want to prosper by the work of their hands, their backs. It is only when the wages puts them into the working poor class that these people object to it. Because these people were taught from childhood, that if you work hard, play by the rules, you can live a decent life and not worry about your kids doing without. Is that too much to ask sir? It does seem to be the case these days, as a man's work has been so devalued as to make him feel worthless, and that his hard work if of no value anymore. I grew up and have lived in different times than these, and I rebel against where our working people have been shoved to. Work used to be of such great value, but today? Well, we have decided that only a particular kind of work is of value, and much of the traditional hard work given to communists was of little value. This is quite the change and it has affected working people in terrible ways. On the one hand we still say a man can work hard and earn a living wage, and on the other we take those jobs away, in order for more profits for the rich. I think this is wrong, and harmful to this nation. Yet even the health of this nation is of no value these days, only the maxing out of profits for the rich is of value. This has created problems for america that is perhaps impossible to solve, given the change we have seen since the cons came back in 80. If you want me to blame the dems too, sure, I will do that. But yet this change started happening when Reagen was elected, and it has only escalated since that time. I voted for Perot because I knew he was right in his appraisel of what was to come if we went with the republican/special interests created plans. He was correct, and so was I.

      If you want to pidgeon hole me as one who believes in socialism, marxism or any other ism, fine, feel free to do so. But I do not consider myself of being of that ideology. I gave the defintion of socialism as was taught years ago, which is a basic defintion of it. It negates private ownership of business. It puts gov't as the owners of all means of production of goods and services, and the way it is distributed. I really do think that defines it, basically. And I am not for that, and I have never been for that. What I do like is the brand of capitalism we had coming out of ww2 and which survived and did great things for the people of america until you guy started tearing down that proven system. It was not perfect, as any manmade system can never be perfect without its downsides. But it made the People prosper and the largest middle class in the history of the world was created under it. To me the middle class has great value and is essential for our form of gov't. Any changes that shrink the middle are destructive. Any changes that allow more income to go to the top few is destructive of a nation with our form of gov't.

      I believe there are different brands of capitalism. I think a hands off capitalism creates great income disparity, because man is driven by human nature. And human nature is always a self centered thing, and the history of the world is a history in which human nature assumed the most power and influence upon other, weaker people.

      Unions, the rise of unions was a reaction of the weaker, in order to address the dictatorship of the elites. If all of these elites would have been decent, moral men, unions would have never arose. That is a fact. Unions rose as a reaction. We all know of the abuses of labor by owners prior to the rise of unions. If you are not aware of it, do some reading of our history. I do not deny that unions were infected with the same greed of the elites, and that because of this unions became in some cases their own worst enemy. But this wasn't the case with all unions, yet all unions were colored the same, especially by cons.

      If you want to leave things up to the better side of human nature and trust all owners to do what is right and moral, remember how it was before unions existed. Yet I get the idea that many cons would be fine with some of those abuses by the employers, as you think since they own the business, this is somehow a god given right. I simply could not disagree more. The power of human nature is the most powerful thing in existence, and it always has been.

      What I have watched over the last 40 years is a very successful effort in minimizing wages in order to max out profits, at the loss of the middle class, at the loss of the american standard of living. The result of this is a growth in social safety net spending that cannot be substained. But it also creates great social problems as well, it creates a disorder and even a sickness in society. It fills up our prisons. It takes away much of the american dream that hard work used to yield. It destroys america from the inside. And I don't like it, as any intelligent man would feel the same way. One part of minimizing labor costs is the attack upon unions. This is a fact. Unions played an important role in enlarging our middle class, as higher wages create middle classes. That too is a fact.

      If you want to minimize wages for working folks, the way it is being done today is the way to do it. You can do it with three lines of attack. You concoct free trade that gives corporations an easy way to offshore labor, middle class jobs. You open up the borders to allow in poor hispanics that will work cheap, below middle class wages, and you go after and try to destroy unions. This has of course been done. So, that is the reason I pro union, anti illegal immigration and anti off shoring of jobs. Does this make me a commie, a marxist, a socialist? Hell no. It makes me a moral and decent human being who is concerned about working americans.

      I live my life by human decency and a morality that has just about been lost. If I am a leftist it is a FDR, a Truman, an IKe, a JFK leftist. And I am proud to be one. I can be nothing else because I am deeply a moral human being. It is the only thing that matters.
      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 12-15-2012, 12:25 PM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

        Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
        Originally posted by Evil_inKarlate View Post
        Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
        i don't think that Blue Doggy's belief system be based on selfness and greed.
        thats a goofy observation by ye, matey.
        Actually, it's a completely rational assessment if one looks deeper at the 'caring Democrat' psyche than I did. ... BD wants one or more of the listed benefits without incurring the costs, or more accurately, while having others incur the costs on his behalf ... Pretty much the textbook definition of selfishness, and just a short step away from greed.
        i hate to say somethin' that'll offend the folks on the right side 'o USPO, but the bolded that ye scribed doesn't really describe Blue Doggy to me, but it does describe conservatives.
        I don't deny that 'caring Democrat' is not the only political demographic that's based on selfishness and greed. Providing evidence, or even Proving, that there are others doesn't change the fact that selfishness and greed are indeed the underpinning motives for the 'caring Democrat', even if they are probably the best at disguising or denying those motives.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

          Originally posted by Evil_inKarlate View Post
          Your best analogy is planning for war. In a large economy, especially an international one, nothing is static. We planned a moon trip because gravity is constant, the moon's orbit is effectively constant, the weight of the rocket and oxygen consumption of astronauts are essentially constant. In war, almost nothing goes according to plan because nothing is constant. You make multiple plans, use the one that's most applicable when the time comes, and then wing it. If it took an act of Congress to raise the gas price, allow milk to go on sale, ramp up production of iPads, and a million other things, we'd quickly devolve below the economic level of the former USSR. But Dems seem to think we can efficiently and effectively regulate a Lot of the economy, and especially plan 'safety nets'. Wash DC cannot possibly know if each and every welfare kid claimed actually exists, if every person on UI is truly looking for work, if a given person made reasonable efforts toward responsibility in retirement and/or health matters, etc. The 'unseen hand' makes a Lot of wrong decisions, but unlike government, it not only typically corrects those wrong decisions, but does so relatively quickly. As a proportion of initial decisions made, the government is probably more wrong than capitalism, and is definitely a Lot slower to correct its mistakes if it corrects them at all. So while there may be 'economic collateral damage,' the free market is a better approach to almost all economic issues.

          Unsustainable safety net spending has been coming for a Long time, because your idols the Dems either don't have the balls to say no and thus don't deserve to be in positions of power, or are as greedy as the 'Cons' and businesses you decry, seeing the self-serving utility of using the people's money to buy the people's votes. And the Dems are also equally involved in selling out the common man - One of the best examples was Clinton giving China most-favored-nation trading status; and that wasn't something the 'Cons' were twisting his arm for - he was twisting Theirs!

          Your beliefs and values are based on idealism, delusion, and partisan hackery (though at least they seem to be in that order of significance). It's not marxism, it's sad.
          I have dissed Clinton for his treason upon average americans, and for going along with the republicans on these issues. I can hardly be considered a democrat these days, as I do not agree with much of what they stand for. But I used to be a democrat, before they changed.

          I can look and see clearly WHY the social safety net spending has exploded. You for some reason, choose to ignore it. And instead of attacking the causes for it, you are the one that falls back on partisan hackery, that you accuse me of.

          My friend if morality and human decency is delusional, what a messed up world that we find ourselves in, and you are carrying its flag. For ideological reasons. My only belief system is grounded in morality, and in the idea that each nation must work to create prosperity for its own people. Not to just work to send more and more wealth to the top, which is what our current model is designed to do, as it slings suffering upon average people, who can no longer by honest work earn a living wage in which to raise a family.

          You are correct if you think that our social saftey net spending cannot be substained. But this was created, and the republicans have bloody hands as they seek to starve the beast, but that starvation will hurt so many people, working people, and you guys really don't give a shit. I am a moral being. I give a shit. You have nothing to offer these average people, except to say, get off your ass and find a job, yet those jobs are gone, the ones that provided these people a way to stay off of safety nets.

          I find nothing moral about the republican party, nothing. And I found so little morality in the people who vote for those bastards. Do I find any morality in the democratic party? Yes, a little, but only a little. They still are concerned about the poor, the displaced workers, yet they have joined in with capitalistic colonialism, where the old democratic party would have had none of it.

          If I could be a dictator here for 2 terms, I would clean up the mess created by the greed of the elites. And it would not be difficult to do. Hell, any man with a half ass healthy brain could do it, because what needs to be done is clear and obvious. You simply reverse what got us here. Our current situation is caused by the greed of the people who have the power to fashion policy. If you or others cannot see that simple fact, there is no hope for you. Or america.

          It is typical of ideological driven people like yourself to twist around what greed, selfishness actually means. It is not greed that makes a man want to work and provide for his family. It is not greed to want to care for the new poor, that were created by the greed of the elites and of our leaders. It is not greed to have a progressive taxation, or to not tax those that can't live on their income as it is now. But it is indeed greed that drives most of the rich in the world. Men who are not infected with greed never hoard wealth, and dictate policy that enriches them as it hurts everyone else. You really have no clue as to the nature of greed, or what it really entails. You see greed through right wing eyes, with a foregone conclusion observing. I see greed simply as for what it is.
          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 12-17-2012, 11:15 AM.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

            Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
            ahoy Evil_inKarlate,

            i really don't feel that the foundation that the Democratic Party is built on are boulders 'o selfishness and greed.

            i guess we agree to disagree here.

            tell me, fer imma curious; what are the underpinnin' motives fer 'compassionate Conservatives'? if Democrats ultimately be motivated by selfishness and greed, what puts the wind in the sails 'o right wingers? imma curious 'o yer take on the right.

            *bows*

            - MeadHallPirate
            The dems in my lifetime seem to be concerned with this noble ideal of social justice, which the cons seem to find distasteful or even socialism, marxism, you know, isms.

            I think christ was the person who brought the idea of social justice into man's consciousness. Apparently christ was one of those damned socialists.

            I don't see how one could say liberals are driven by selfishness and greed, at least no more so than old Joe Blow who is worrying and trying to provide for their family.

            But I have known men who would declare that a worker wanting a fair days pay for a fair days work, to be selfish and greedy. I think the cons are deeply lacking in the ability to distinguish selfishness and greed from common human needs and desires for nothing more than a better life, without requiring great wealth and the hoarding of that wealth. Most average americans that I know personally only want a fair shake, fair wages for their work. This isn't selfishness and greed, no more than a man who is struggling not to drown is selfish and greedy. Like it or not the physical organism is hard wired to survive, and that isn't selfishness or greed. Selfishness and greed comes in when the drowning man would want to be compensated for coming close to drowning, and he would want to become wealthy in that compensation. That would be selfishness and greed.

            A man who jerks his hand out of a fire isn't selfish nor greedy. Just intelligent. I think some cons confuse the two, in order to make some ludicrous point in defense of real selfishness and greed. Just my opinion.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

              [QUOTE=Blue Doggy;2136111]Technically what the other companies were doing is similar to Price Fixing and unless you are 100 years old and had this business back in the 30's and 40's there are laws against what they did.

              In my own manufacturing business, I saw dirty tricks played, or they tried to play me, from my competitors, but I won't go into it as it still tends to piss me off. But suffice to say that my wages were above the industry average and this drew the ire, and the dirty tricks from 2 of my competitors who apparently suffered from worker dissatisfaction, due to what these workers made, compared to my own. It would have been so easy to just do as these competitors wished and to have met their wages to avoid conflict between me and them. But, principles have ruled my life, as I was raised that way. After a decade of the dirty tricks, thankfully these two finally gave up, and I only took 5 of their best employees. And since my turnover was non existent, I never was a great threat to them anyways. I guess they had their own principles too, although dirty principles.
              If you could have proved what they were doing violated the law they could have been charged. I see things like this all the time and if anyone else in my industry does it I report the crime. If I have to I will file charges. If what they did was illegal, you should have filed charges. If it was against regulations then you file a grievance. If the unions worked hand in hand and you are not a union shop then it is the workers onus to do something and force their unions to do better by them.

              You exclaim that the working people covet the wealth of the owners. That their envy is so great as to want to cause destruction. I don't believe that. I think it is a misrepresentation of these people, yet it is a deeply held, although false belief of some cons. It is their fall back argument. That has not been my own experience at all, and I can only base my opinions upon my own life experience. If I were to believe as you do, I would have utterly ignore my own life's observations. And of course to do that would be hardly sane, or even reasonable.
              What do you call it when someone says X makes too much and I deserve more? Is that Covetting? Is that Greed? What is it? How about when a Union goes on strike and states they don't care if they bankrupt a company they want more money. It isn't like the Mechanics Union at Northwest was making minimum wage or even working heavy hours. Northwest brought in scabs. The other fallacies are that If as an executive I am hired, I have a contract. The Contract says I get X pay and raises and bonuses etc etc etc. Same with a Union the employees get X pay and raises and bonuses etc etc etc. Yes there is a disparity in pay but so what. You don't like what you are paid then leave the union and work out your own contract if you don't like what the union got you. How much does it cost to go to court when a company is about to go bankrupt to fight a breech of contract lawsuit when it will break the company as assuredly as a union strike.


              The people I have known in my own long life, my employees and the vast number of working people I have personally known, none of them despised the rich, none of them wanted to take away their wealth. All of these people ever wanted was to be treated fairly and to be paid a fair wage for a day's work. Whether you can believe it or not, most working people just want to prosper by the work of their hands, their backs. It is only when the wages puts them into the working poor class that these people object to it. Because these people were taught from childhood, that if you work hard, play by the rules, you can live a decent life and not worry about your kids doing without. Is that too much to ask sir? It does seem to be the case these days, as a man's work has been so devalued as to make him feel worthless, and that his hard work if of no value anymore. I grew up and have lived in different times than these, and I rebel against where our working people have been shoved to. Work used to be of such great value, but today? Well, we have decided that only a particular kind of work is of value, and much of the traditional hard work given to communists was of little value. This is quite the change and it has affected working people in terrible ways. On the one hand we still say a man can work hard and earn a living wage, and on the other we take those jobs away, in order for more profits for the rich. I think this is wrong, and harmful to this nation. Yet even the health of this nation is of no value these days, only the maxing out of profits for the rich is of value. This has created problems for america that is perhaps impossible to solve, given the change we have seen since the cons came back in 80. If you want me to blame the dems too, sure, I will do that. But yet this change started happening when Reagen was elected, and it has only escalated since that time. I voted for Perot because I knew he was right in his appraisel of what was to come if we went with the republican/special interests created plans. He was correct, and so was I.
              What is a fair days pay? If you are working 60-80 hours a week as a CEO and the fate of the company rests on your shoulders so your stress and responsibility is immense and so many people depend on you. What is a fair pay for that? How many Management people have heart attacks from the work and stress compared to how many line workers have heart attacks. I think that is a telling number.

              If you want to pidgeon hole me as one who believes in socialism, marxism or any other ism, fine, feel free to do so. But I do not consider myself of being of that ideology. I gave the defintion of socialism as was taught years ago, which is a basic defintion of it. It negates private ownership of business. It puts gov't as the owners of all means of production of goods and services, and the way it is distributed. I really do think that defines it, basically. And I am not for that, and I have never been for that. What I do like is the brand of capitalism we had coming out of ww2 and which survived and did great things for the people of america until you guy started tearing down that proven system. It was not perfect, as any manmade system can never be perfect without its downsides. But it made the People prosper and the largest middle class in the history of the world was created under it. To me the middle class has great value and is essential for our form of gov't. Any changes that shrink the middle are destructive. Any changes that allow more income to go to the top few is destructive of a nation with our form of gov't.
              I presented the actual definition and philosophy of Socialism and Communism. You can argue all you want but if you are put up support for your side or your whole argument is based on opinion. Opinion is not an argument. As for coming out of WW2. There were lots of factors that is a whole swath of information that would be a discussion unto itself and has. The nutshell is that government got out of the way and let people succeed. Unions had nothing to do with the Middle Class which actually started to form at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Just by calling a group "middle class" is buying into the idea of class distinctions and has it roots in marxism. You would be better off not to refer to any given group by their "class" income range would be better.

              I believe there are different brands of capitalism. I think a hands off capitalism creates great income disparity, because man is driven by human nature. And human nature is always a self centered thing, and the history of the world is a history in which human nature assumed the most power and influence upon other, weaker people.


              Unions, the rise of unions was a reaction of the weaker, in order to address the dictatorship of the elites. If all of these elites would have been decent, moral men, unions would have never arose. That is a fact. Unions rose as a reaction. We all know of the abuses of labor by owners prior to the rise of unions. If you are not aware of it, do some reading of our history. I do not deny that unions were infected with the same greed of the elites, and that because of this unions became in some cases their own worst enemy. But this wasn't the case with all unions, yet all unions were colored the same, especially by cons.
              I have said many times I like the Electricians union and the model they use for the advancement and maintaining of skills should be applied to teachers.

              BTW you obviously do not understand what a Conservative is. If you did you would not be throwing out the term cons for anyone who is against unions or against the liberal agenda. As I have said many times to you there is a big difference between Republicans and Conservatives but you time and again use a blanket of "cons" which is disingenuous at best. Blatant slam at worst.


              Do you think the Mafia gave a rats ass about workers when they helped unions form? My wife's grandfather was a Union Organizer, her uncle IS Mafia. I married into a very interesting family and thankfully we are far enough that they have no influence on us. Men inherently want more, they will either take from others to get more or they will work their asses of to get more. The idea that bosses are inherently going to screw the workers is total bullshit. That is not the norm when you go across the country you find more often than not that management cares about workers. Unions expect abnormal pay rates for low to no skill jobs. Why does a janitor in the school system make 20-25/hr? Is that skill set so much in demand that it warrants that pay level? Right now a Computer Tech with a CS degree on average makes 18/hr. How hard is it to push a broom and empty trash. I did it as a 10 year old kid. Not a high skill job. So in my opinion it should not be paid a high wage. But unions don't care if your skill set is barely above burger flipper you deserve more. No one is owed a living wage. You bargain, you push your put in effort to get more and more if you can. There are plenty of laws now to cover everything. No need for unions.

              If you want to leave things up to the better side of human nature and trust all owners to do what is right and moral, remember how it was before unions existed. Yet I get the idea that many cons would be fine with some of those abuses by the employers, as you think since they own the business, this is somehow a god given right. I simply could not disagree more. The power of human nature is the most powerful thing in existence, and it always has been.
              Look at all the healthy and capable people on welfare and unemployment who as long as they have a free ride wont lift a finger to get a job. They are quite happy to take the freebies from the government and leech off the productive people in the Country. More often than not people are good. If you think otherwise then you really have a very negative view of humans. I have watched Undercover boss and pretty much guarantee each boss is as they come across. They care about their employees and worry about them. I have also have seen some wretched examples of humanity. There are always going to be the poor examples to the rule. I have a higher opinion of people and believe from observation that owners and management care much more often than they screw their employees. I am sorry you have such a negative opinion of bosses. But sorry to say you are not different from the norm, nothing special as bosses go. Most of us care about our employees than not.

              What I have watched over the last 40 years is a very successful effort in minimizing wages in order to max out profits, at the loss of the middle class, at the loss of the american standard of living. The result of this is a growth in social safety net spending that cannot be substained. But it also creates great social problems as well, it creates a disorder and even a sickness in society. It fills up our prisons. It takes away much of the american dream that hard work used to yield. It destroys america from the inside. And I don't like it, as any intelligent man would feel the same way. One part of minimizing labor costs is the attack upon unions. This is a fact. Unions played an important role in enlarging our middle class, as higher wages create middle classes. That too is a fact.
              Unions were along for the ride. They had absolutely nothing to do with increasing the fictional middle class. Wages went up because of the industrial revolution. More skilled workers and a lean worker supply drove wages. Henry Ford created the 5 day week and the 40 hour week. He added benefits ALL WITHOUT UNION INTERVENTION. All the unions did was say, we want GM to do the same, we want Chrysler to do the same. Unions saw what was happening at Ford and wanted the other 2 to capitulate and do the same thing. Ford just wanted to keep his workers so he paid them more and offered them more benefits for working for him. As for wages going down. Under Reagan the average household income rose $4000 while so far under Obama the average household income has gone down $4000. Doesn't look like it is the boss who is causing all this. Can't blame someone for pulling up stakes and going to another country where costs are lower. Maybe if you bought something made in the USA instead of Made in China companies would stay. But you would have to pay probably about 33% to 66% more and even over 100% more for your coffee maker to do it. No more cheap TVs. You willing to pay double for your "stuff" in order for it to be made in the US? Until you do what I do which is shop carefully and make sure as much as possible is made in the United States you are just supporting those companies that outsource to other countries. And in doing so are being extremely hypocritical. The other thing you and the rest of the liberals don't understand is even a simple pencil is a global marketplace item. If you cannot understand that then there is no hope you will ever truly understand how the capitalism works.

              If you want to minimize wages for working folks, the way it is being done today is the way to do it. You can do it with three lines of attack. You concoct free trade that gives corporations an easy way to offshore labor, middle class jobs. You open up the borders to allow in poor hispanics that will work cheap, below middle class wages, and you go after and try to destroy unions. This has of course been done. So, that is the reason I pro union, anti illegal immigration and anti off shoring of jobs. Does this make me a commie, a marxist, a socialist? Hell no. It makes me a moral and decent human being who is concerned about working americans.

              I live my life by human decency and a morality that has just about been lost. If I am a leftist it is a FDR, a Truman, an IKe, a JFK leftist. And I am proud to be one. I can be nothing else because I am deeply a moral human being. It is the only thing that matters.

              Got to love NAFTA... thank you Clinton. NAFTA was the beginning of it. It has it's roots in the treaties with Canada going back to FDR and Truman. All the Democrats doing. And some idiot Republicans who didn't pay attention. You want to blame off shoring you also have to look in the mirror.


              Also it is NOT decent to force people to give up their money to give to those who don't

              BTW

              From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs.... pure Marxist. I bet you believe those words.

              Trouble is... most of the people who are claiming "need" are healthy enough to work but refuse to because we are too willing to give to them.

              BTW I love the disabilities people are getting so they don't have to work.

              Too much stress on the job so you are disabled and cannot work. I could qualify for that one.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                I can look and see clearly WHY the social safety net spending has exploded. You for some reason, choose to ignore it. And instead of attacking the causes for it, you are the one that falls back on partisan hackery, that you accuse me of.
                There are two reasons for the explosion - The one we both see, the crashing economy and the decrease in the amount and quality of employment that that has brought, and the one that you choose to ignore, the fact that the safety net had been expanded beyond just a safety net, to also be a way of buying votes and growing political fiefdoms and as a harbor for frauds.

                And I'm amused by your standard leftist hack tactic, though a bit surprised, since you're usually above that - Accuse your opponent of whatever you're doing. Filtering for nothing but partisan content, your posts almost universally can be summarized as something akin to "Repubs are soulless demons, cons are evil incarnate, and Dems as a whole are no longer saints because too many are in bed with the Repubs." Mine can be summarized as as "Rank-and-file Dems are naive and idealistic, and keep electing (D)ems who are self-serving, lying @$$#0!3$; the only reasons the Repubs are even slightly preferable is they aren't as good at it." If one had to pick one as 'partisan hackery', I hardly think it would be mine...

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                My friend if morality and human decency is delusional, what a messed up world that we find ourselves in, and you are carrying its flag.
                Morality and decency are not delusional - Seeing them where non exists is delusional. If one looks purely at talking points, I agree with you that the only people that would vote Repub would be sadists, masochists, and religious and/or gun nuts. But I look at the overall reality, which is that having to choose between (D) and R) is like choosing whether to have your left nut cut off or your right. Anyone who champions either of these options, never mind the worse one, is delusional in my book.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                My only belief system is grounded in morality, and in the idea that each nation must work to create prosperity for its own people. Not to just work to send more and more wealth to the top, which is what our current model is designed to do...
                And yet you only Selectively denounce the architects of that model? And support the party of "You didn't build that", paying women to have unemployable children, and 'less work for more pay'? Sounds like a belief system on shaky ground to me. (Or perhaps having more of a partisan component than you claim?)

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                ... the republicans ... seek to starve the beast, but that starvation will hurt so many people, working people, and you guys really don't give a shit.
                On the contrary - While I know that from a hard-assed 'the way it should be' point of view social safety net spending should end completely and immediately, I also realize it took us almost a century to get into this situation and any decent exit plan will be measured in years if not decades. (but then again, I'm not a republican...)

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                If I could be a dictator here for 2 terms, I would clean up the mess ... You simply reverse what got us here. Our current situation is caused by the greed of the people who have the power to fashion policy. If you or others cannot see that simple fact, there is no hope for you. Or america.
                I agree completely with what you're saying here, though I doubt it's what you actually mean.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                It is typical of ideological driven people like yourself to twist around what greed, selfishness actually means. ... Men who are not infected with greed never hoard wealth ... You really have no clue as to the nature of greed, or what it really entails. ... You see greed through right wing eyes ... I see greed simply as for what it is.
                [/QUOTE]There is no twisting, just pointing out that you see greed through Dem eyes, using an inappropriately narrow definition, and as such you have no clue as to the nature of greed. We all agree that someone who would add to their already sizable pile of gold by robbing another is obviously selfish and greedy. But what of a rapist? By your reasoning, he is not selfish or greedy, as no gold changes hands; I disagree. And what of a hooligan who destroys others' property for their own amusement? Again, you would say there is no greed or selfishness; and again, I would disagree.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                It is not greed that makes a man want to work and provide for his family.
                But you say it is. Unless they use your approved definition of 'work' and 'provide for' and 'family'. How is your set of definitions superior to all others? And how is making that claim not selfish?

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                It is not greed to want to care for the new poor, that were created by the greed of the elites and of our leaders.
                To want to, no it is not. To actually do so, no it is not. To demand that others do so under threat of harm, that may not be greed, but it is certainly selfish.

                [QUOTE=Blue Doggy;2136692]It is not greed to have a progressive taxation, or to not tax those that can't live on their income as it is now.[QUOTE=Blue Doggy;2136692]That depends on how progressive the taxation is; and again, if there is no greed, there is still the selfishness of demanding that others live by your terms.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                But it is indeed greed that drives most of the rich in the world. Men who are not infected with greed never hoard wealth...
                So when one reads the occasional story about the retired professional who out of the blue announces that he's building a new community center for underprivileged youth, they're greedy? So when the CA school teacher inherits millions from their cousin who had led a plain life while quietly stashing away two wheelbarrows of gold, that was greedy? And the fact that I've been able to live off my own savings despite not having a job for six months means that I'm greedy?

                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                i really don't feel that the foundation that the Democratic Party is built on are boulders 'o selfishness and greed.
                i guess we agree to disagree here.
                tell me, fer imma curious; what are the underpinnin' motives fer 'compassionate Conservatives'? ... imma curious 'o yer take on the right.
                *bows*
                Most political parties are based on wanting others to pay for that party's vision of society, whether that means forcibly taking money from the public (and their children, and Their children...) to pay for things that should be voluntary, or foregoing basic rights like freedom of association or control over what they can do with and/or put into their own bodies. Reduced to generalities like that, (R) is no different from (D).

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                The dems in my lifetime seem to be concerned with this noble ideal of social justice, which the cons seem to find distasteful or even socialism, marxism, you know, isms.
                Those who oppose the dems, cons or not, typically do not find social justice distasteful, they find addressing one social injustice by perpetrating another to be distasteful.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                I don't see how one could say liberals are driven by selfishness and greed, at least no more so than old Joe Blow who is worrying and trying to provide for their family.
                It depends on how JB is doing it. If he's working, and using the money to pay family expenses, then he's the core of America. If he's working and using the money to pay family expenses, and finds he's good at it so works more to help the less fortunate, he's a philanthropist. If he's stealing and using the money to pay family expenses, then he's to be pitied and perhaps forgiven. If he's stealing and using the money to pay family expenses, and finds he's good at it so steals more to help the less fortunate, he's a Democrat.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                But I have known men who would declare that a worker wanting a fair days pay for a fair days work, to be selfish and greedy.
                And I have known men who feel they are the final arbiters of what constitutes 'fair', 'pay', 'day', 'work', 'selfish', and 'greedy', to the exclusion of definitions supplied by others more aware of the details of the situation, then claim their presumption is in no way shape or form 'selfish'.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                Most average americans that I know personally only want a fair shake, fair wages for their work. This isn't selfishness and greed, no more than a man who is struggling not to drown is selfish and greedy. ... Selfishness and greed comes in when the drowning man would want to be compensated for coming close to drowning, and he would want to become wealthy in that compensation. That would be selfishness and greed.
                That last selfishness and greed being easily tolerated by (R)epubs and actively promoted by (D)ems (trial lawyers assoc). So what does one make of a drowning man who would pull another under in his attempt to not drown? And what would you say of one who encourages the drowning man to do that? And of one who throws others in so the drowning man can do that?
                Last edited by Evil_inKarlate; 12-23-2012, 03:03 PM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  The dems in my lifetime seem to be concerned with this noble ideal of social justice, which the cons seem to find distasteful or even socialism, marxism, you know, isms.

                  I think christ was the person who brought the idea of social justice into man's consciousness. Apparently christ was one of those damned socialists.

                  I don't see how one could say liberals are driven by selfishness and greed, at least no more so than old Joe Blow who is worrying and trying to provide for their family.

                  But I have known men who would declare that a worker wanting a fair days pay for a fair days work, to be selfish and greedy. I think the cons are deeply lacking in the ability to distinguish selfishness and greed from common human needs and desires for nothing more than a better life, without requiring great wealth and the hoarding of that wealth. Most average americans that I know personally only want a fair shake, fair wages for their work. This isn't selfishness and greed, no more than a man who is struggling not to drown is selfish and greedy. Like it or not the physical organism is hard wired to survive, and that isn't selfishness or greed. Selfishness and greed comes in when the drowning man would want to be compensated for coming close to drowning, and he would want to become wealthy in that compensation. That would be selfishness and greed.

                  A man who jerks his hand out of a fire isn't selfish nor greedy. Just intelligent. I think some cons confuse the two, in order to make some ludicrous point in defense of real selfishness and greed. Just my opinion.
                  Libs like Nancy Pelosi, Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, the Kennedys, movies stars, are all immensely wealthy and yet they want to be philanthropists with someone else's money, not their own. When Nancy and Claire give 90% of their wealth to take care of the poor, I will be ready to raise taxes. When Barbara Streisand moves out of Hollywood and into my neighborhood and sells all of her assets to give to the poor, I will be ready to raise taxes. When you start giving as much as I do, we will start talking about who is greedy. You want someone else to pay your share so you can feel good but you and the other libs don't want to sacrifice anything yourself.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

                    New developments on this story. Yes, right to work has passed, and it is perfectly legitimate now to chose NOT to join a union, just as it's perfectly legitimate to quit a union. . . . . Except in the union's eyes, and the harassment they bring into those that dare to.

                    Chanski wants to leave her union, the Coopersville Education Association, an affiliate of the Michigan Education Association. She wants out as part of the state's right-to-work law, but the union will not let her leave, and she says it threatened her credit rating if she doesn't pay dues. So now she's doing something about it.

                    She and seven other teachers from across Michigan are filing complaints with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission against their local unions and the MEA, challenging the one-month "August window" the union says is the only time they are allowed to leave. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is representing the educators in the unfair labor practice cases.

                    Chanski didn't give much thought to opting out of the MEA until this past spring when a union representative came into her classroom to get her credit card or bank account number to ensure that she paid her dues electronically.

                    "At that time, I did not feel comfortable giving either of those numbers," Chanski said. "That is very private information that I did not want on a piece of paper."

                    But that was the only option the union gave her. However, with the state's passage of a right-to-work law, she felt she had more options than before. After discussing it with people she trusted, she decided to opt out.

                    On her union dues form, Chanski wrote at the top that she was intending on dropping out. In July, she got a letter from the local Uniserv director.

                    "She informed me that they did in fact receive my e-dues form and noted that I was choosing to opt out of the union," Chanski said.

                    She called the Uniserv director and was told she was out. But she found it wasn't quite so simple.

                    During the second week of school, the president of the union at Chanski’s school went to her classroom before school and said she had gotten word that Chanski wished to opt out of the union. She asked if Chanski had sent in a separate letter to the MEA. Chanski said she was not aware of a separate letter she was supposed to send. The president told her that she had missed the August window to leave the union.

                    "I had no clue about the window," she said.

                    Patrick Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, said the August window is "a time period the union has kept hidden from its members."

                    Teacher Sues MEA To Escape Union [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
                    I dunno, but this smells of union obfuscation, thuggery and bullying to me. What do you think?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      New developments on this story. Yes, right to work has passed, and it is perfectly legitimate now to chose NOT to join a union, just as it's perfectly legitimate to quit a union. . . . . Except in the union's eyes, and the harassment they bring into those that dare to.


                      I dunno, but this smells of union obfuscation, thuggery and bullying to me. What do you think?
                      Oh no, union leaders are angels. Pure as the wind driven snow. They would NEVER do anything illegal, threatening, or mean.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: MIchigan Teachers, more probably Union Leaders of Michigan Teachers Union, don't like

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Oh no, union leaders are angels. Pure as the wind driven snow. They would NEVER do anything illegal, threatening, or mean.
                        Obviously missing a <sarcasm> tag here.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?

                        Working...
                        X