Forum: Current Events
Topic: Republican True Colors
started by: Expatriate
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 03 2012,9:23 am
< http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/138616959.html >

The Republican attack on working class shows just who runs these boys the Corporate Masters have gave the order “BUST the UNIONS”
The downward spiral in wages and worker’s rights will effect every worker, union or not unionized.
Capitalism runs on consumerism when you take the money form the worker for short term Corporate profitability & bonuses the economy
suffers..
The shortsighted policy of the Republican’s isn’t really good for anyone in the long-run...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2012,10:21 am
The unions are nothing more than another political organization picking money out of the pockets of working people
Posted by grassman on Feb. 03 2012,10:22 am
Do not fret, Mitts got our back. He wears blue jeans and everything!
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2012,11:02 am
^why do I find no comfort in that?
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 03 2012,12:39 pm
I fail to see the benefit of being coerced into joining a union.  The number of Right to Work states are growing to nearly half the states. (23)  

Since when has the American public decided that free choice is not what made this country great?

< Minnesota Right to Work >
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 03 2012,12:50 pm
"Right to Work" Laws: Get the Facts


What is a “right to work” law?

Despite its misleading name, this type of law does not guarantee anyone a job and it does not protect against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - the union contract.

A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.

“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process. Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!

Will a “right to work” law benefit workers in Minnesota?

No. Workers in states with so-called Right-to-Work (RTW) laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states - lower wages, higher poverty, less access to health care, poorer education for children - according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Census Bureau. Why should Minnesota adopt a losing RTW strategy that lowers the standard of living for workers and their families?

Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages

On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.

“Right to Work” States Spend Less on Education

Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.

“Right to Work” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.

“Right to Work” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards

Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.

78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.

Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.

How will a “right to work” law affect Minnesota's economy?

We need to strengthen our economy, and a so-called “Right to Work” Law would take us in the wrong direction. Minnesota has a better economic record than states with so-called “right to work” laws. For employers, a union contract with lower turnover and higher employee morale equals higher productivity. By undermining contracts and depressing wages, a “right to work” law will reduce expendable consumer income and hurt productivity.

Do we need a “right to work” law to attract new jobs to Minnesota?

No. Industries locate in a state for many reasons, but a right to work law is not one of them. Factors like workforce productivity, availability of skilled workers, transportation, closeness to markets and materials, quality of life and proximity to research universities are the keys to economic growth. We need to create good jobs throughout the state, but a “right to work law” will not persuade companies to move here.

Who benefits from “Right to Work” Laws?

No one. Some low-wage employers might think that they would benefit from weak unions and low wages, but union members are also consumers. “Right to work” laws undermine the purchasing power of unionized workers. Employees covered by union contracts receive 28 percent more in wages and benefits than workers without unions. For women workers, the union advantage is 34 percent. For African American workers, the union advantage is 29 percent. And for Hispanic workers, the union advantage is a whopping 50 percent. When “right to work” laws weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits, workers have less to spend and the entire economy – particularly small business--suffers.


“Right to Work” and Individual Freedoms

Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union?

No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union. Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.

Is a union required to represent all employees covered by a contract (nonmembers as well as members)?

Yes. Under federal labor law, unions have the duty to fairly represent all workers covered by a contract. That means nonmembers as well as members get the same wages, hours and working conditions established by the contract. Unions must bargain for everyone and enforce the contract terms for everyone in a fair, honest, nondiscriminatory manner. Unions cannot refuse to pay the costs of arbitrating a grievance simply because it involves a nonmember. A union that violates this duty of fair representation can be sued. This duty of fair representation applies whether or not the state has a right to work law.

If Minnesota enacts a “right to work” law, who will pay the costs of representing non-members?

Union members will be forced to pay not only their own share of representation costs, but also the full costs of those who do not pay their fair share of dues but still receive all of the benefits of union representation.

Does a union security clause require nonmembers to pay full union dues?

No. Nonmembers are required to pay only the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining expenses, so these costs are fairly shared by all represented employees.

Can a union unilaterally impose a union security agreement?

No. The employer and the union must negotiate a union security agreement. If management refuses, there is no union security agreement.

Why would an employer agree to a union security clause?

Many employers want to avoid the divisions and animosity that occur when some workers have to pay the costs of representing other employees.

Will a “right to work” law protect a worker’s right to a job?

No. These laws guarantee no one a job, nor do they provide any due process or just cause protections against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - a grievance procedure that requires employers to have legitimate, job-related reasons for disciplining or discharging an employee.
Posted by nphilbro on Feb. 03 2012,1:34 pm
Henry Ford believed that it was important to pay workers wages that would afford them the ability to buy his cars. Other industries followed suit for the same reason and still others followed to compete for workers.

Companies are now in a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Nafta gave them access to the Mexican labor market which they in turn squeezed to compete with the Indonesian labor markets. Many US companies take the myopic view that wages are nothing but a liability to corporate financial returns and fail to see their role in premium market reduction.

It's more imperative than ever that companies become even more transient and continue to open more global employment markets that don't participate in global consumerism to manufacture goods for a US consumer market. While the number of consumers in the US continues to grow the purchasing power of the average American is greatly reduced due to decreasing access to employment opportunities that pay sustainable wages.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 03 2012,2:49 pm
Expat and nphil hit it on the head. What really, really blows me away is people who think that they are in a class that they are not. How can a working class person say bad things about somebody who is trying to help them. So what if you pay dues to belong, you pay dues to the country club or whatever other club you belong to don't you. This is the problem that started back in the 80's, bad press by certain players about unions. Mindless people were lead by the nose to slaughter. I never thought it would get to the point it has. This is why the top have reaped such wealth while the laborers have stayed  stagnant or gone backward. Divide and conquer are more than just words. They have done it with OUR govt and done it with OUR livelihood. This is why, for the life of me, I can not see why a working class person would ever vote Republican. This latest batch have so many times proved what they are REALLY about. Some call it gaffs, I call it the truth slipping out. These people have no idea  who, what, or where you are. Wake up America.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 03 2012,3:14 pm
It was under Clintoon that NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall occurred. Save the tired old "republicans are bad for labor" meme.  :frusty:
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 03 2012,3:27 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 03 2012,2:49 pm)
QUOTE
Expat and nphil hit it on the head. What really, really blows me away is people who think that they are in a class that they are not. How can a working class person say bad things about somebody who is trying to help them. So what if you pay dues to belong, you pay dues to the country club or whatever other club you belong to don't you. This is the problem that started back in the 80's, bad press by certain players about unions. Mindless people were lead by the nose to slaughter. I never thought it would get to the point it has. This is why the top have reaped such wealth while the laborers have stayed  stagnant or gone backward. Divide and conquer are more than just words. They have done it with OUR govt and done it with OUR livelihood. This is why, for the life of me, I can not see why a working class person would ever vote Republican. This latest batch have so many times proved what they are REALLY about. Some call it gaffs, I call it the truth slipping out. These people have no idea  who, what, or where you are. Wake up America.

You can blame Obummer for creating  the hostile environment that has your blood pressure up.  And if class warfare isn't enough for you...you could always up the ante and make it about race and join African Americans for Obama.

Did I read it right?  Is Expat concerned that somebody is going to get something for nothing?  Say it isn't so.   :rofl:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 03 2012,3:57 pm
CC's cuzins, :laugh:
                             I LIKE NEWT            I LIKE MITT                 I LIKE CATFISH
Posted by Roadhouse on Feb. 03 2012,4:28 pm
So where are all the jobs in these states? WI seems to be really kicking it out!
Posted by hairhertz on Feb. 03 2012,5:14 pm
Sid, the guy on the left, is an old biker buddy of mine.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 03 2012,5:25 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 03 2012,12:50 pm)
QUOTE
"Right to Work" Laws: Get the Facts

Nice that you fail to post a link so unless the reader does some searching they wouldn't know this article was publiched by the AFL-CIO of Minnesota.

At least the link I put up by the Center of the American Experiment claims to be a nonpartisan institution.

The right to work bill before the house would allow workers to freely join a union if chosen, but at the same time it will protect employees from being coerced to pay union dues, support union political causes, or live under a collective labor agreement if she or he wishes to negotiate individually with the employer.

QUOTE
Despite its misleading name, this type of law does not guarantee anyone a job and it does not protect against unfair firing.
 Who is trying to say it guarantees anyone a job?  And why should anyone be immune from being fired?  Why shouldn't an owner or boss have the right to hire or fire who he chooses?

Do your job well and/or work well with coworkers.  Follow instructions and meet or exceed expectations of your employer and you have no reason to worry about being fired.

QUOTE
A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement
That's more union hogwash.  The proposed Employee Freedom Bill is, in a nutshell, would make it so unions could no longer require membership or collect a due or fine a person who works for the same company and chooses not to join a union.  It allows Minnesotans to vote on whether or not they are forced to pay dues to a third party.  The bill also assures that union collective bargaining will not change.

In Minnesota if an employee refuses to pay union dues rihgt now, they're fired.  That neither sounds fair or freedom to choose.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 04 2012,7:07 am
You really think doing your job well, getting along with coworkers, and meeting or exceeding expectations means you don't have to worry about being fired? If only it were that easy.  I have known plenty of people that fit all those things and were still sent packing. Workplace politics are by far the biggest thing one needs to worry about.  Unions have both good and bad qualities and they still have their place in some circumstances.  I guess if you don't want to work in a union shop don't apply there.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 04 2012,7:45 am

(Moparman @ Feb. 04 2012,7:07 am)
QUOTE
You really think doing your job well, getting along with coworkers, and meeting or exceeding expectations means you don't have to worry about being fired? If only it were that easy.  I have known plenty of people that fit all those things and were still sent packing. Workplace politics are by far the biggest thing one needs to worry about.  Unions have both good and bad qualities and they still have their place in some circumstances.  I guess if you don't want to work in a union shop don't apply there.

Ha ha - A lot of truth there. That's why it's important to consider the right people's perspective when you consider issues like these.

Kids you should listen to Expatriate on this one. IMO


QUOTE
Do your job well and/or work well with coworkers.  Follow instructions and meet or exceed expectations of your employer and you have no reason to worry about being fired.


That quote made me think of this movie:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 04 2012,10:37 am
[MADDOG,Feb. 03 2012,5:25 pm]
QUOTE
At least the link I put up by the Center of the American Experiment claims to be a nonpartisan institution.

Center of the American Experiment nonpartisan :rofl:  the only rightwing nut-job missing is Karl Rove

QUOTE
The right to work bill before the house would allow workers to freely join a union if chosen, but at the same time it will protect employees from being coerced to pay union dues, support union political causes, or live under a collective labor agreement if she or he wishes to negotiate individually with the employer.

Right-to work is a race to the bottom, it's a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits, less job security, if a worker feels less secure in his/her future s/he’s less likely to buy that new car or house the economy as a whole joins the downward spiral.. ( car salesmen lose their jobs )
The Republican party doesn’t care about the worker this is a total corporate sponsored organization their goal is to cripple funding to the Democratic party the actual party of the people.
Dues collection will be like Mike Parry’s ( R. Waseca) Bill, which plain and simple Union Busting legislation..
To make an amendment to put the fate of Union Workers on the Ballot to be decided by the general public most of whom have no idea of the working conditions in my view is dirty politics...The Only thing the Republican’s excel at..

QUOTE
Who is trying to say it guarantees anyone a job? And why should anyone be immune from being fired? Why shouldn't an owner or boss have the right to hire or fire who he chooses?

Do your job well and/or work well with coworkers. Follow instructions and meet or exceed expectations of your employer and you have no reason to worry about being fired.

No ones job is guaranteed just because you belong to a union.. I spent a couple decades with UFCW Local P-6 (Wilsons) and longer with IBEW Local 949, in that time I've seen folks get canned, but for justified cause, I’ve also seen the Union stand up for members when the the Company unjustly pulled things.

QUOTE
That's more union hogwash. The proposed Employee Freedom Bill is, in a nutshell, would make it so unions could no longer require membership or collect a due or fine a person who works for the same company and chooses not to join a union. It allows Minnesotans to vote on whether or not they are forced to pay dues to a third party. The bill also assures that union collective bargaining will not change.

In Minnesota if an employee refuses to pay union dues right now, they're fired. That neither sounds fair or freedom to choose.


Actually you’re wrong, Minnesota State workers have what’s called Fair Share it gives them the option to join the union or not, money is deducted from their check but it goes to charity, I believe this option is also implemented on County, City level but can depend on Contract language elsewhere. So this freedom you speak of already exists.
I’m unable to actually find the Bill language for this Amendment, does that mean if the voter’s approve this impending legislation it will be written later????
Mike Parry’s bills H.F. 2070 and S.F. 1607, make it almost impossible to collect union dues from State workers, State worker’s already the option not to join Unions, so what we’re talking about here is Republican Party Union Busting made legal by legislation..
I’m sure the Right to Work Law Amendment will contain similar language if this draconian legislation makes it to the ballot...
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 05 2012,6:52 am
Republican Motto: We can employ everyone if they'll accept wages of $1.00 per hour.. Take it or starve to death.. :woohoo:
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 05 2012,9:17 am
Democrat Motto: We will pay everyone $20 an hour and tax you $19 per hour so we can take care of you.
Both parties are just as out of touch as the other.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 05 2012,11:17 am
So the pro-union crowd wants the freedom to be able to unionize the work place but do not want to give the actual workers the freedom to decide what is in hers or his own best interest.

Are you all on crack?  What kind of country do you think we live in.  

If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

Maybe you can start your own business and hire your own laborers since you think you're so smart.

nuff said...
Posted by nphilbro on Feb. 05 2012,11:47 am
I'm just curious how the dichotomy in core values is so easily overlooked.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 05 2012,11:52 am
Maybe they're waiting on some sort of Super Ayn Rand (Now, with Religion!). Perhaps that's what all the Bachmann/Palin fuss was about.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 05 2012,1:25 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,11:17 am)
QUOTE
So the pro-union crowd wants the freedom to be able to unionize the work place but do not want to give the actual workers the freedom to decide what is in hers or his own best interest.

Are you all on crack?  What kind of country do you think we live in.  

If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

Maybe you can start your own business and hire your own laborers since you think you're so smart.

nuff said...

If an employee finds a better opportunely they will leave. They don't owe the employer anything either. Respect, appreciation, and fairness should be a two way street.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 05 2012,4:31 pm

(Moparman @ Feb. 05 2012,9:17 am)
QUOTE
Democrat Motto: We will pay everyone $20 an hour and tax you $19 per hour so we can take care of you.
Both parties are just as out of touch as the other.

So very true.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 05 2012,5:00 pm

(Moparman @ Feb. 05 2012,1:25 pm)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,11:17 am)
QUOTE
So the pro-union crowd wants the freedom to be able to unionize the work place but do not want to give the actual workers the freedom to decide what is in hers or his own best interest.

Are you all on crack?  What kind of country do you think we live in.  

If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

Maybe you can start your own business and hire your own laborers since you think you're so smart.

nuff said...

If an employee finds a better opportunely they will leave. They don't owe the employer anything either. Respect, appreciation, and fairness should be a two way street.

And you don't need a union to accomplish any of the above.  IMO, unions are not the standard bearer for respect, appreciation, and fairness.  

An employee should be free from harrassment, not only from their employer but also the union within the workplace.  Let the employee decide how he wants his interest to be represented.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 05 2012,5:05 pm
A person supporting "right to work" does not mean they don't believe in the value of labor laws.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 06 2012,7:24 am
The employee does decide how his/her interests are represented when they accept a job at a union or a nonunion shop.  Except for overtime and minimum wage "labor laws" really don't cover to much.  It would be perfectly legal to work someone for 16 hours a day 365 days a year with no breaks, no vacation, and no benefits. And then when they burn out fire them for some made up cause.  And yes, I know this is an extreme example, but it would be legal.  IMO, calling this right to work is like calling Roe v. Wade right to life.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 06 2012,7:53 am
So if I'm working at a company and I've made my own contracts with them other workers can come in and void these contracts?
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 06 2012,8:12 am
The Right to Work Amendment is a farce, it’s merely an attack on labor to increase profitability for the Corporate Masters..
Greed is shortsighted disease, it’s Republican Policy and legislation such as the Right to Work Amendment that cause Depressions.

The only thing proving Karl Marx wrong about capitalism has been the unions ability to create a middle class, that gone we’ll
be just another Banana Republic, the few, the proud, the rich hoarding all the wealth as the economy spirals to the depths of despair.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 06 2012,8:33 am
Isn't part of this probably Mike Parry trying to get attention for his election bid?

< http://mikeparry.com/latestnews/ >
Posted by grassman on Feb. 06 2012,8:59 am

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,5:00 pm)
QUOTE
If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

And you don't need a union to accomplish any of the above.  IMO, unions are not the standard bearer for respect, appreciation, and fairness.  

Is that why labors' wages and benefits have been racing right along with the tops? :sarcasm:
Sounds like an other peoples money handler talking to me.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 06 2012,9:25 am

(hymiebravo @ Feb. 06 2012,8:33 am)
QUOTE
Isn't part of this probably Mike Parry trying to get attention for his election bid?

< http://mikeparry.com/latestnews/ >

Mike Parry quote
QUOTE
6.  End "class warfare" style attacks. Our nation is already divided - we don't need our political leaders pitting one American against another so that they can win re-election.  


the quote above is from the link Hymie provided on Mike Parry.. the anti labor legislation Mike is sponsoring pits one Minnesotan against another!
I know Mike, Congratulations Mike you finally became a real Politian, say one thing do another just like the Boy’s in D.C.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 06 2012,5:27 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 06 2012,8:59 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,5:00 pm)
QUOTE
If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

And you don't need a union to accomplish any of the above.  IMO, unions are not the standard bearer for respect, appreciation, and fairness.  

Is that why labors' wages and benefits have been racing right along with the tops? :sarcasm:
Sounds like an other peoples money handler talking to me.

Are you saying a laborer making widgets on an assembly line should receive the same comp increases as the executives or the owners?   :crazy:
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 06 2012,6:01 pm
And why shouldn't they? Without correctly assembled widgets the executives and owner have nothing but blue sky to sell.  Any manufacturing company is only good as the people actually doing the manufacturing!
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 06 2012,10:19 pm
• 8 of the 12 states with the highest unemployment rates are right-to-work states.

• 6 of the 8 states that have the lowest wages are right-to-work states.

• Wages in right-to-work states are 12 percent lower than those in non-right-to-work states.

• Rates of uninsured are 24 percent higher in right-to-work states.

• Rates of uninsured children are 39 percent higher in right-to-work states.

• 12 of the 14 highest wage states are not right-to-work states.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 06 2012,10:39 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 06 2012,5:27 pm)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 06 2012,8:59 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,5:00 pm)
QUOTE
If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

And you don't need a union to accomplish any of the above.  IMO, unions are not the standard bearer for respect, appreciation, and fairness.  

Is that why labors' wages and benefits have been racing right along with the tops? :sarcasm:
Sounds like an other peoples money handler talking to me.

Are you saying a laborer making widgets on an assembly line should receive the same comp increases as the executives or the owners?   :crazy:

Maybe not "the same comp" . But why shouldn't it be a tad more fair? The top have been increasing everything for themselves while decreasing everything for workers. CEO pay used to be about 25% higher than worker pay. Now most times it is well over 200% higher. Same with retirement. Workers retirement compensation has been decreasing severely while CEO pensions skyrocketed.

CC, I highly doubt MOST of us little people are jealous of the big guys or want what they have, but things could definitely be a little more even than they are. They have changed legislation in their favor over and over again. They have used tax codes and loopholes every which way possible. - All for them to get richer while the workers get less.

I recommend "Retirement Heist" by Ellen Schultz.
< http://www.retirementheist.com/about/ >

It's in most public libraries. Albert Lea has it.

There are countless articles, videos and books about the subject. Just google CEO pay.
Here's an article on her book in Forbes  http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/10/19/retirement-heist-how-firms-plunder-workers-nest-eggs/

CBS did a story on it a few years ago.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/eveningnews/main5714036.shtml

Right to work is just another thing to help them and hurt us.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 07 2012,9:47 am

(Moparman @ Feb. 06 2012,6:01 pm)
QUOTE
And why shouldn't they? Without correctly assembled widgets the executives and owner have nothing but blue sky to sell.  Any manufacturing company is only good as the people actually doing the manufacturing!

And why should they? Have they risked any money? Resources? Have they worked till the wee hours of the morning trying to keep customers happy? No offense meant but if I risk my financial well being to start a company I'm going to pay what the market is for labor, if this doesn't meet you standards "thankyou very much for coming in and interviewing, good luck and there' the door" Employees should be treated well and with respect but they don't run the company.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 07 2012,12:58 pm
Yes they risk money. They risk their financial well being trusting the owner/executive will make good decisions.  If they screw up your out of a job.  You really think that employees don't try to satisfy the costumer? In my experience it is the employee left trying to appease the costumer after the boss made some impossible promise.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 07 2012,4:31 pm

(Moparman @ Feb. 07 2012,12:58 pm)
QUOTE
Yes they risk money. They risk their financial well being trusting the owner/executive will make good decisions.  If they screw up your out of a job.  You really think that employees don't try to satisfy the costumer? In my experience it is the employee left trying to appease the costumer after the boss made some impossible promise.

No,employees risk very little, if things go bad an employee can go down the road to another job. If they screw up it affects the companyand yes, if they screw up enough they can be fired. But in that case there's unemployment and lately it just keeps getting extended.as an independent, I don't have these safety nets but because I have greater risks, I have greater rewards. Employees are like sheep, sometimes they need to be shorn.

Remember, Chance favors the bold
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 07 2012,5:13 pm
Nice try! If things go bad ANYONE can go looking for another job including Mr. Owner.  Unemployment pays little and can be denied and appealed for whatever made up reason one can think of which can drag out for months. It is just silly to say that your employees have little risk working for you. And if you just think of them just as sheep than I pity them.  As far as chance favoring the bold, remember there are old dogs and bold dogs but, there are no old bold dogs.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 07 2012,6:14 pm
^ I am
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 08 2012,7:03 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 07 2012,6:14 pm)
QUOTE
^ I am

Yea I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind, too. lol  :sarcasm:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2012,9:43 am
^Just like you :D
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 09 2012,5:50 pm
H.F. No. 65, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Jan 10, 2011


1.1         A bill for an act

1.2         proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article I, by adding a
1.3        section; establishing a freedom of employment.
1.4       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.5      Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
1.6     An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
1.7     amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:
1.8    Sec. 18. No person shall be required as a condition of obtaining or continuing
1.9   public sector or private sector employment to: (1) resign or refrain from membership
1.10  in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization; (2)
1.11 become or remain a member of a labor organization; (3) pay any dues, fees, assessments,
1.12 or other charges of any kind or amount, or provide anything else of value, to a labor
1.13 organization; or (4) pay to any charity or other third party an amount equivalent to,
1.14 or a portion of, dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a
1.15 labor organization. An agreement, contract, understanding, or practice between a labor
1.1 6 organization and an employer that takes force or is extended or renewed after adoption of
1.17 this section and that violates this section is unlawful and unenforceable. A person who
1.18 suffers an injury or a threatened injury under this section may bring a civil action for
1.19 damages, injunctive relief, or both. In addition, a court shall award a prevailing plaintiff
1.20 costs and reasonable attorney fees. As used in this section, "labor organization" means any
1.21 agency, union, employee representation committee, or organization of any kind that exists
1.22 for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates
1.23 of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.
1.24 If any part of this section is found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution
2.1  or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United
2.2  States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperative is
2.,3 severable from the remaining portions of this section.

2.4 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
2.5 The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2012 general
2.6 election. The question submitted must be:
2.7 "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to guarantee all citizens the individual
2.8 freedom to decide to join or not join a labor union; to remain with or leave a labor union;
2.9 or to pay or not pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to a labor union
2.10 or any affiliated third party or charity, without having it affect their employment status

< https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin...on=ls87 >
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 10 2012,8:35 am
Maybe proponents of that legislation should get Self Banished to come and speak before a committee or group of legislators.

He could espouse to them about how, the true path to prosperity in Minnesota and The United States, is through picking up day laborers outside 7-Eleven.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 10 2012,8:41 am
^Super America dumbass.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 10 2012,9:14 am
Self-Banished is a victim of AM radio’s mind altering control, he’s been convinced unions are evil, they cater to lazy overpaid slackers that are dragging the American economy into to crapper.
This mindset couldn't be farther from the truth, unions are made up of working people who have band together to achieve rights we all enjoy today, union or not.
We are all workers Self-Banished included, divide and concur is the strategy of the day.. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is quoted with "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
These words ring true for labor today, union or not...The Right to Work for less Amendment must be defeated!!

We need you on our side of this issue Self-Banished, we must banned together for the betterment of all workers!
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 10 2012,9:56 am
Join a union if you want, I have no objections to that. But don't ever force me to join one.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 10 2012,10:17 am
Voting for legislation like the Right to Work law is Union Busting, it’s not about individual rights.. As I’ve stated union membership is already optional in may contracts here in Minnesota.
But that’s not good enough for Corporate owned Republican legislators, it’s their intention to make dues collection or fair share outright impossible...
When the Unions are gone the buying power of the workers gone the loads you haul diminish the cars Maddog sells stop moving you’ll realize you voted yourself out of a job...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 10 2012,10:39 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 10 2012,10:17 am)
QUOTE
Voting for legislation like the Right to Work law is Union Busting, it’s not about individual rights.. As I’ve stated union membership is already optional in may contracts here in Minnesota.
But that’s not good enough for Corporate owned Republican legislators, it’s their intention to make dues collection or fair share outright impossible...
When the Unions are gone the buying power of the workers gone the loads you haul diminish the cars Maddog sells stop moving you’ll realize you voted yourself out of a job...

I was in a union years ago, all they did was take money out my paycheck. As explained earlier if I were to refuse to join a union money would still be taken out and given elsewhere. I already write large checks to another welfare outfit, the largest check being wrote on April 15th. This bill would give a worker more freedom .
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 10 2012,4:13 pm
Gotcha, you had less than fulfilling experience with a union in the past, if you had a less than fulfilling experience with a woman would you give up on them? doubt it...
Self-Banish this isn’t an insult but driving a truck gets more difficult as you age, it’s a dogs life, some day you may not be able to pass that D.O.T. physical, you might just have take a crap job to survive. You’re more expandable than product, yields and production speed far exceed the value of the individual worker’s safety or welfare, you’ll wish Unions still existed and you’ll remember your foolish vote for Right-to-Work that killed them, the curse is of your own making!
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 10 2012,4:42 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 10 2012,9:14 am)
QUOTE
he’s been convinced unions are evil, they cater to lazy overpaid slackers that are dragging the American economy into to crapper.

What's so crazy about that theory? I've seen it happen.

When Wxxx (non-union shop) was bought by FOX Television and moved into Kxxx's facility (union shop) I noticed that my department was a lean, mean group of six people with a can-do attitude. The equivalent department at Kxxx was bloated, lazy, and not all that knowledgeable. They complained constantly about pulling an increased workload, a workload that the Wxxx folks had been accustomed to for years.

Unions pander to the lowest common denominator, and create an environment of entitlement, and guarantee that Dumb-Lazy Worker will get promoted ahead of Smart-Efficient Worker, just because Dumb-Lazy was hired first. And that's B.S., in my opinion.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 10 2012,6:11 pm
So working less for more money makes one dumb and lazy? Years of service mean nothing? Imagine being a hard working productive employee at a company for 20+ years only to be passed up by some kid with no experience that will work for cheap.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 11 2012,5:34 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 10 2012,4:13 pm)
QUOTE
Gotcha, you had less than fulfilling experience with a union in the past, if you had a less than fulfilling experience with a woman would you give up on them? doubt it...
Self-Banish this isn’t an insult but driving a truck gets more difficult as you age, it’s a dogs life, some day you may not be able to pass that D.O.T. physical, you might just have take a crap job to survive. You’re more expandable than product, yields and production speed far exceed the value of the individual worker’s safety or welfare, you’ll wish Unions still existed and you’ll remember your foolish vote for Right-to-Work that killed them, the curse is of your own making!

I take no offense, I know you believe in what you speak of. Driving truck is a rather easy job when I think about it. We no longer hand unload, machinery and day labor took care of that. The last time I was told I had to unload freight by hand or else I wouldn't get paid I pulled ahead, closed the doors and told the customer to call me when he had made arrangements for labor. He found labor quite quickly. Things have changed in the 30 years I've been driving, from power steering to the smart phone I use for dispatch,e-mails,and mapping. I come from a farming family and the men in my family all worked into there 70's,I have years to go at 51. I also have a lot of friends in their 60's driving and a couple in their 70's.Driving isn't what it used to be just like unions aren't what they where 50 plus years ago. I don't want some "political type" telling me what I can and cannot do, I don't want money taken from me to fill some lazy bastards pocket.

If for some reason I can't drive anymore I get asked on a regular basis to sit a chair in the office and dispatch or broker, if not that I'll just start another business.

I can almost guess the next thing you'll say is "what about the other guy that can't do that?" Well, the world needs ditch diggers too.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 11 2012,7:06 am
So your calling other people lazy and then in the next breath say you closed your doors and pouted when told to unload your truck.  We get drivers like that once in awhile but, once we call their dispatcher and explain the $250 per hour late fee they back up and finish their job pretty quick.  Considering all the new environmental laws now I'm sure it takes more education to be a ditch digger than a truck driver. Many of the divers we get can barely read or write much less speak English.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 11 2012,8:38 am
^yeah I hear you on the quality of driver that coming on now,driver shortage over the last ten or som year has done that. They run them through school for three or less weeks then turn them loose in 40 tons of truck and freight, these drivers have bought me more than one mirror when they try to back up next to me in a dock. I've even made a little extra cash by backing there rigs into tight spots where they give up(money up front please)

Pretty much all of my customers hire because of a service level they expect and service they don't expect, the little extras. Loads delivered after hours, double drops ect. They pay for it because the service level they get from "Johnny come lately immigrant " who probably was herding goats a year ago sucks and this is exactly the type of driver I would expect the union to protect.

And if I were to come to your dock and you told me I had to unload your freight or you're going to charge me 250 bucks, in my little part of the trucking world I call my dispatcher and he'll tell me to take to our fenced and secured drop yard,slap a pin lock on it and there it will sit till your company pays the extra drayage charge,the storage charges at the yard,the charges the steamship company will charge and the chassis rental. Depending on the line involeved it'll run 3-350 a day. Also considering that a lot of companies operate on "just in time inventory" you'll have operational costs too. 'hope I deliver to your company someday :D
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 11 2012,9:31 am
Well technically it's your freight till the seal is broken, it's inspected, and the BOL is signed. Many of the places we ship to require the driver to unload and break down the load. So I guess it depends on what the paperwork says.  We have had drivers threaten to do what you described, but it has not happened yet. Once the higher ups duke it out over the phone something is always worked out. But at least we can agree on the chuckleheads that are being passed off as drivers now a days. Some of these guys should not even be driving a bicycle!
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 11 2012,10:21 am
It's a sad fact isn't it?
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 11 2012,2:26 pm

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 10 2012,4:42 pm)
QUOTE
Unions pander to the lowest common denominator, and create an environment of entitlement, and guarantee that Dumb-Lazy Worker will get promoted ahead of Smart-Efficient Worker, just because Dumb-Lazy was hired first. And that's B.S., in my opinion.Wxxx folks had been accustomed to for years.

"Et tu, Botto?" pull the knife from my back!!
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 11 2012,2:28 pm
Edit delete: ( double post )
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 11 2012,10:58 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 06 2012,10:39 pm)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 06 2012,5:27 pm)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 06 2012,8:59 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 05 2012,5:00 pm)
QUOTE
If you don't like the wages an employer is paying then take arse and find something else.  The employer doesn't owe you anything.  

And you don't need a union to accomplish any of the above.  IMO, unions are not the standard bearer for respect, appreciation, and fairness.  

Is that why labors' wages and benefits have been racing right along with the tops? :sarcasm:
Sounds like an other peoples money handler talking to me.

Are you saying a laborer making widgets on an assembly line should receive the same comp increases as the executives or the owners?   :crazy:

Maybe not "the same comp" . But why shouldn't it be a tad more fair? The top have been increasing everything for themselves while decreasing everything for workers. CEO pay used to be about 25% higher than worker pay. Now most times it is well over 200% higher. Same with retirement. Workers retirement compensation has been decreasing severely while CEO pensions skyrocketed.

CC, I highly doubt MOST of us little people are jealous of the big guys or want what they have, but things could definitely be a little more even than they are. They have changed legislation in their favor over and over again. They have used tax codes and loopholes every which way possible. - All for them to get richer while the workers get less.

I recommend "Retirement Heist" by Ellen Schultz.
< http://www.retirementheist.com/about/ >

It's in most public libraries. Albert Lea has it.

There are countless articles, videos and books about the subject. Just google CEO pay.
Here's an article on her book in Forbes  http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/10/19/retirement-heist-how-firms-plunder-workers-nest-eggs/

CBS did a story on it a few years ago.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/eveningnews/main5714036.shtml

Right to work is just another thing to help them and hurt us.

If you guys wanna just bitch about how much the CEOs make...how much the business owners make...how much profit a company makes...tax loopholes...etc. etc. etc.
what is stopping YOU from being a CEO?
what is stopping YOU from being that business owner?
what is stopping YOU from creating and making a profit?YOU made your choices...now live with it!!
can you say PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY :thumbsup:
If YOU are unhappy in your professsion...get out...start your own...take a chance...come on!  No one OWES you anything!
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 11 2012,11:25 pm
You're waisting your breath here Santo...

They will never get it.  They will continue to feel sorry for themselves and play right into the hands of the liberal elite who need to justify their existence.  That is why a liberal millionaire feels guilt for making the money he does.  

Certain caucasians in this country see the same same thing when it comes to race and it is called "white guilt".

nuff said...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 12 2012,5:24 am
I have the answer to your three questions Santos...
Balls
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 12 2012,9:01 am

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 10 2012,4:42 pm)
QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Feb. 10 2012,9:14 am)
QUOTE
he’s been convinced unions are evil, they cater to lazy overpaid slackers that are dragging the American economy into to crapper.

What's so crazy about that theory? I've seen it happen.

When Wxxx (non-union shop) was bought by FOX Television and moved into Kxxx's facility (union shop) I noticed that my department was a lean, mean group of six people with a can-do attitude. The equivalent department at Kxxx was bloated, lazy, and not all that knowledgeable. They complained constantly about pulling an increased workload, a workload that the Wxxx folks had been accustomed to for years.

Unions pander to the lowest common denominator, and create an environment of entitlement, and guarantee that Dumb-Lazy Worker will get promoted ahead of Smart-Efficient Worker, just because Dumb-Lazy was hired first. And that's B.S., in my opinion.

The entertainment industry is notorious for having issues regarding unions.

But. . . You could bring some people that stand 12 hours a day on a line somewhere, and show them either station scenario, and they might think that everyone had it easy.

Then we can talk about efficiency and innovation: The Rochester FOX station uses an automated robotic like system to do their sound and camera work for their NEWS don't they?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 12 2012,9:06 am
No, as usual YOU do not get it Santorini and CC.
The reason we are bitching is because they are cutting workers retirement benefits so they can give the CEO's exorbitant pay and benefits. why do you two think it is ok for the workers to get huge cuts so that the big guys get insane bonuses? Obviously you did not read the article.

Here is just a part of the article. And again, I do recommend reading the Ellen Schulz book.

A little over a decade ago, most companies had more than enough set aside to pay the benefits earned by two generations of workers, no matter how long they lived. But by exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations, and new accounting rules, companies essentially turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters, and profit centers.

Drawing on original analysis of company data, government filings, internal corporate documents, and confidential memos, Schultz uncovers decades of widespread deception during which employers have exaggerated their retiree burdens while lobbying for government handouts, secretly cutting pensions, tricking employees, and misleading shareholders. She reveals how companies:

   Siphoned billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings, and sold the assets in merger deals
   Used loopholes in discrimination rules to tap pension plans to pay executive parachutes, pensions, and deferred compensation.
   Exploited new accounting rules, which actually gave employers an incentive to cut benefits even when pension plans had more than enough money, because the moves generated gains that boosted profits by billions.
   Used the accounting rules to inflate retiree health obligations to justify cutting benefits, and enjoy a bigger boost to income when they subsequently cut them. The accounting rules are so flexible that employers have been able to use their retiree plans to manage earnings, using well-timed benefits cuts, changes in assumptions, and contributions to the plans.


Maybe I will become a CEO some day, but I guarantee I will not screw my workers just so I can get richer. Most likely when I start my business I will model it after the Mondragon idea. Every worker will be owner and have say in how it is run.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2012,9:23 am
That is what I find so laughable about some of their arguments. They claim to be morally and spiritually just, yet will take a bread crumb out of someone's  mouth. No you can't have it, it's all mine. :p
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 12 2012,9:36 am
I have been looking around the web and reading various things about this issue.

Here are a couple of things standing out to me so far:

1. The most common theme seems to be everyone using extreme examples to try and make their point.

2. In regard to Minnesota there is a lot of widespread reporting about how everyone seems to favor this.

But then I think:

How is this issue worded when they poll people? Do they call you up and say: " Hi, how are you? Do you support "The Right to work?" or " Do you think people should be able to negotiate on their own behalf?"

And how many of these people, that are supposedly being polled, are really even truly qualified to make a sound judgement on this?

Those sorts of things.

Or what will it look like on a ballot?

Like this: (?)
Do you support the right to work?

The point is: Personally, my. . .  "I'm being conned alarm is started to go off a little here", in regard to all the ballyhoo about how great this legislation is.

If I had to vote on it today. I would vote no based on that alone.
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 12 2012,10:36 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 12 2012,9:06 am)
QUOTE
No, as usual YOU do not get it Santorini and CC.
The reason we are bitching is because they are cutting workers retirement benefits so they can give the CEO's exorbitant pay and benefits. why do you two think it is ok for the workers to get huge cuts so that the big guys get insane bonuses? Obviously you did not read the article.

Here is just a part of the article. And again, I do recommend reading the Ellen Schulz book.

A little over a decade ago, most companies had more than enough set aside to pay the benefits earned by two generations of workers, no matter how long they lived. But by exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations, and new accounting rules, companies essentially turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters, and profit centers.

Drawing on original analysis of company data, government filings, internal corporate documents, and confidential memos, Schultz uncovers decades of widespread deception during which employers have exaggerated their retiree burdens while lobbying for government handouts, secretly cutting pensions, tricking employees, and misleading shareholders. She reveals how companies:

   Siphoned billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings, and sold the assets in merger deals
   Used loopholes in discrimination rules to tap pension plans to pay executive parachutes, pensions, and deferred compensation.
   Exploited new accounting rules, which actually gave employers an incentive to cut benefits even when pension plans had more than enough money, because the moves generated gains that boosted profits by billions.
   Used the accounting rules to inflate retiree health obligations to justify cutting benefits, and enjoy a bigger boost to income when they subsequently cut them. The accounting rules are so flexible that employers have been able to use their retiree plans to manage earnings, using well-timed benefits cuts, changes in assumptions, and contributions to the plans.


Maybe I will become a CEO some day, but I guarantee I will not screw my workers just so I can get richer. Most likely when I start my business I will model it after the Mondragon idea. Every worker will be owner and have say in how it is run.

No YOU dont get it Rosalind!!
YOU guys want jobs AND you want to dictate (not negotiate) the inner workings and profits of the business!!  Where is YOUR degree in business and finance?  (oh thats right...your expertise comes from the left-wing-progressives rantings and obscure experts  :rofl: and web-sites!!!) The whole objective of creating a business is need and profits!  If YOU people do not like your jobs...what is keeping you there?  What makes you think you can dictate the game rules?  You people with your the wealthy and the government OWES me attitude is nothing short of pathetic and non-productive!  Use your energy to create the life YOU want for yourself instead of bitching about how good the other guys has it!
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2012,1:12 pm
:O
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 12 2012,3:26 pm

(Santorini @ Feb. 11 2012,10:58 pm)
QUOTE
can you say PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY :thumbsup:

You think you’re special because you won a medal at the Special Olympics, well you’re still retarded!!
If anybody is paying you Minimum Wage that Employer should be reimbursed as they’re being severely ripped off!
I can’t take anymore I’m going to out you..Sarah Palin is your name isn’t it...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 12 2012,6:15 pm
Mondragon??? I had to look that one up. It sounds like pure socialism. Rose,(and I'm trying real hard to be nice) but if you don't have even a little bit of greed in your soul you're not going to make it in business today. Like it or not you have to have some self-preservationist attitude or you'll be eatin' alive.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big. Remember this, it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle, than to get a rich man into the promised land. :thumbsup:
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 12 2012,9:39 pm
You forgot the part about selling that soul.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 12 2012,9:41 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 12 2012,6:15 pm)
QUOTE
Mondragon??? I had to look that one up. It sounds like pure socialism. Rose,(and I'm trying real hard to be nice) but if you don't have even a little bit of greed in your soul you're not going to make it in business today. Like it or not you have to have some self-preservationist attitude or you'll be eatin' alive.

Mondragon is a very successful Co-Operative in Spain. The workers all invest the same amount of money. They all give input and ideas. Everything is very transparent. Is that socialism?

You can call me Roz.

You are probably right, I probably would be eaten alive, that is why I will need stronger people with me in this venture. Stronger and smarter. No, I don't have greed in my soul, and if that is what is necessary to "Make it" in today's world, that is a shame. I refuse to become a Trump or Romney. I'm quite happy being a nobody. I already have pretty much everything I need and want. The other people I start with in this Co-Operative will not be able to be greedy either. As I already stated, everything will be very transparent and every persons input will be appreciated.

I honestly don't think greed is a prerequisite to success. Besides, a Co-op such as Mondragon pretty much makes unions a non-issue as well. Makes alot of things a non-issue.

Please tell me how you feel it's socialism.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2012,4:56 am
Well Roz,I see as this, in any organization there's always going to be an alpha dog and with that the others are always going to end up serving the alpha. Seems like it always works that way.

As for the greed part,yes it is good but I have my family I think about, I provide for them, no one else.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2012,5:03 am

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big. Remember this, it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle, than to get a rich man into the promised land. :thumbsup:

Same page different book? I hear you Grassman but my thoughts are leaning towards hyperinflation right here in the U.S. I believe it's coming sooner than anybody thinks. But you mid east observation has a real possibility too. As I see it, we're all in for real hard times.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2012,5:11 am

(Moparman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:39 pm)
QUOTE
You forgot the part about selling that soul.

That's why I'd never join a union, it would be selling my soul.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 13 2012,7:34 am

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.

OMGOSH Botto, I was just working on putting that link into this forum.   < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6mwMYhSPs&feature=related >

And this link. Apparently his last show is supposed to be tonight, but after this last show of his here, < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._player >

I doubt he will be on tonight.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 13 2012,12:34 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big. Remember this, it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle, than to get a rich man into the promised land. :thumbsup:

Although we know what you meant; entering the promised land is not  what is hard for a rich man.  That verse would be, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

The 'promised land' is where Moses led the Israelites.

Grassman.  How  would you interpret what Jesus meant when he told the rich man this?
Posted by grassman on Feb. 13 2012,12:40 pm
I think he meant that the rich were to give up their riches and worldly possesions, for the true riches were for him in the kingdom with God.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 13 2012,1:49 pm
:thumbsup:

I think it carried two messages.  The one you mention and to teach his disciples another lesson.  In biblical times, if you were rich, many believed your wealth was a blessing from God and if you were poor, your family was cursed.  That being why his disciples then followed by asking, "Who then can be saved?”

"with God all things are possible.”
Posted by grassman on Feb. 13 2012,3:44 pm
What do you think of this passage?

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
or..

James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 13 2012,5:26 pm
To continue the story told before the Jewish leaders, it continues:
QUOTE
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

  27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

  29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

  30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

  31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This last verse is the distinguishable statement.  Keep in mind that the Pharisees were testing Jesus, looking for a reason to arrest him.  Therefore, He rebuked them without their understanding.  We know this is why Jesus spoke in parables.  First, Jesus had ealier raised a man named Lazarus from the dead.  Even after this, the Pharisees refused to believe that He was the Son of God.  The rich man cried to Abraham, not to His God.  What He said was if the Jewish leaders didn't follow and listen to the teaching of Moses and Abraham, (dead people), that even if a dead man, (Lazarus and soon to be Christ) rose from the dead, it wouldn't matter.  They wouldn't listen then either.  They, the Pharisees, were the destined rich men who would be tormented by the flames after living their lavished lives.


James, servant of God and Jesus Christ.  A favorite apostle after Timothy.  

Sorry, got to shut down shop for the night.  I'll try to give you my take on James' warning to the Jews when I get home.
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 13 2012,7:07 pm
This whole right to work thing is very simple really.
Let the state be right to work.  When people apply for a job, they can chose whether or not to join the union.
If they do, fine.  
If not.  Fine.  But you don't get the same representation the union would provide the unionized worker.
If the union is that great, there should be no need for forced membership, people will willingly join.
As it stands now, you are coerced into joining the union on condition of employment.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 13 2012,7:25 pm
GIL is on track.  This is about the RTW amendment.

Grassman, link this < video >.  I had been watching this series before Christmas and hadn't gotten back to it until tonight.  Pastor Mark is pretty cool to listen to.  Not a bad voice either.  
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 14 2012,7:40 am
QUOTE
This is about the RTW amendment.


I think you listened to too many REO Speedwagon records and it damaged your brain.

Now you're trying to invoke religion into all of this?

That is about as strong as your President Obama is the antichrist rantings, were.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 14 2012,7:58 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 13 2012,7:34 am)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.

OMGOSH Botto, I was just working on putting that link into this forum.   < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6mwMYhSPs&feature=related >

And this link. Apparently his last show is supposed to be tonight, but after this last show of his here, < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._player >

I doubt he will be on tonight.

Don't you think there is a possibility that these types of things are staged? That is: This guy's show being cancelled supposedly amidst some controversy.

Because there isn't a whole lot of spontaneity on television. Even when they try and make things look that way, they really aren't.

Cancelling a show because it was controversial would look better than cancelling it because it wasn't popular, wouldn't it?

And the buzz about it kind of promotes FOX too doesn't it?
Posted by grassman on Feb. 14 2012,8:05 am
If you had read all of the posts, you would have gotten the jist of the conversation. My point is that the way that business has been going, is not very Christian like. They are taking away from the workers to enrich themselves. I was posting passages that pertain to such. Why does the top have to take as much as they can from the lower to be happy? Labor has taken it in the shorts for the last 30 years, you cannot argue against that with a straight face. Statistics have been given to show that Right to work laws do not help anyone but the top. Here is a graph of how the top has flourished over the years while the labor has stagnated.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 14 2012,8:07 am
Meanwhile...
My posts were reference to, by chasing money while beating someone down, is against God's law.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 14 2012,8:31 am
Yes but we have Maddog trying to say that those same words, more or less, mean that the opposition to what you're saying is right.

According to him:

His Christian pop band there, and their preacher, are singing about promoting the republican agenda and who ever is behind that.

Which like I mentioned is starting to sound an awful lot like his promotion of the President Obama is the antichrist, rantings.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 14 2012,8:51 am

(grassman @ Feb. 14 2012,8:05 am)
QUOTE
If you had read all of the posts, you would have gotten the jist of the conversation. My point is that the way that business has been going, is not very Christian like. They are taking away from the workers to enrich themselves. I was posting passages that pertain to such. Why does the top have to take as much as they can from the lower to be happy? Labor has taken it in the shorts for the last 30 years, you cannot argue against that with a straight face. Statistics have been given to show that Right to work laws do not help anyone but the top. Here is a graph of how the top has flourished over the years while the labor has stagnated.

Proverbs 22:16  

Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.

Job 31:13-15  

“If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

“[The Lord will judge] those who oppress the wage earner in his wages” (Malachi 3:5). “You shall not oppress a hired servant….You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets” (Deuteronomy 24:14-15).
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 14 2012,9:39 am
Don't forget.

The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 14 2012,10:09 am

(MADDOG @ Feb. 14 2012,9:39 am)
QUOTE
Don't forget.

The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it.

:dunno:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 14 2012,10:44 am

(grassman @ Feb. 14 2012,10:09 am)
QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Feb. 14 2012,9:39 am)
QUOTE
Don't forget.

The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it.

:dunno:

Went over my head too.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 14 2012,10:48 am
Never ever trust whitey
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 14 2012,11:07 am
Lord loves a workin' man.


Proverbs 10:4 -Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 14 2012,11:23 am
That's it. Can't argue with the jerk. Speechless. :laugh:
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 14 2012,11:48 am
It's easy for anyone to look at which side of the fence they want.  According to the < National Institute for Labor > you have to wonder why every state hasn't gone RTW yet.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 14 2012,11:50 am
MADDOG:Proverbs 10:4 -Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth.


Wait a minute, are you saying workers are lazy? The second graph grassman posted shows record profits for corporations, that doesn't even show how CEO pay has skyrocketed. On average, CEO's now make 250 X's what workers make, when at times in the past they made 20-40 X's what workers do. Even many failing companies the CEO's still see huge benefits, where as the workers just lose their jobs when the company fails. CEO's work harder than the peon workers and that is why they make so much more money while workers pay and benefits doesn't keep up with the times?
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 14 2012,12:12 pm
Where did I say workers are lazy?  Go pitch your occupy tent somewhere.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 14 2012,3:02 pm

(MADDOG @ Feb. 14 2012,11:07 am)
QUOTE
Proverbs 10:4 -Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth.

I see. :;):
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 14 2012,5:03 pm

(MADDOG @ Feb. 14 2012,12:12 pm)
QUOTE
Where did I say workers are lazy?  Go pitch your occupy tent somewhere.

:rofl:    :rofl:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 14 2012,10:38 pm

(hymiebravo @ Feb. 14 2012,7:58 am)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 13 2012,7:34 am)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.

OMGOSH Botto, I was just working on putting that link into this forum.   < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6mwMYhSPs&feature=related >

And this link. Apparently his last show is supposed to be tonight, but after this last show of his here, < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._player >

I doubt he will be on tonight.

Don't you think there is a possibility that these types of things are staged? That is: This guy's show being cancelled supposedly amidst some controversy.

Because there isn't a whole lot of spontaneity on television. Even when they try and make things look that way, they really aren't.

Cancelling a show because it was controversial would look better than cancelling it because it wasn't popular, wouldn't it?

And the buzz about it kind of promotes FOX too doesn't it?

Sure it's possible. But since it seems our government and Israel's government are hell bent on starting WWIII, it might be a good idea for more of us to start checking into things before it's too late. Watch that first video. Do some more checking into things Michael Scheuer and others are saying.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 15 2012,6:33 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 14 2012,10:38 pm)
QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Feb. 14 2012,7:58 am)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 13 2012,7:34 am)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.

OMGOSH Botto, I was just working on putting that link into this forum.   < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6mwMYhSPs&feature=related >

And this link. Apparently his last show is supposed to be tonight, but after this last show of his here, < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._player >

I doubt he will be on tonight.

Don't you think there is a possibility that these types of things are staged? That is: This guy's show being cancelled supposedly amidst some controversy.

Because there isn't a whole lot of spontaneity on television. Even when they try and make things look that way, they really aren't.

Cancelling a show because it was controversial would look better than cancelling it because it wasn't popular, wouldn't it?

And the buzz about it kind of promotes FOX too doesn't it?

Sure it's possible. But since it seems our government and Israel's government are hell bent on starting WWIII, it might be a good idea for more of us to start checking into things before it's too late. Watch that first video. Do some more checking into things Michael Scheuer and others are saying.

I'm not a big subscriber to Armageddon. It has been used for centuries to manipulate people for various reasons.

For example religion:

Preachers have said the same sorts of things for hundreds of years.

"Look at the earthquakes, look at the wars, look at the floods" and so on.

"Join up now before it's too late".

How's that for the most controversial example? lol

People like Alex Jones use it for similar personal gain, too. IMO

I read somewhere once. . .  that the Y2K scare may have significantly contributed to the economy. . . because of all the extra supplies people bought for their Armageddon rooms.

So sometimes it can be good for the U.S. economy I guess though.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 15 2012,6:46 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 14 2012,5:03 pm)
QUOTE

(MADDOG @ Feb. 14 2012,12:12 pm)
QUOTE
Where did I say workers are lazy?  Go pitch your occupy tent somewhere.

:rofl:    :rofl:

You just have to keep in mind that Maddog isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and he seems to be a little senile. I think that may be really why he liked former President Ronald Reagan.

And you also have to remember that: YOU are the one who needs to change your view not him. Because rest assured his ideas are locked in and permanent. So much to the point that you really don't even need to read his posts anymore at this point. IMO

I like they way we took a very common thing that divides people: Politics. And we added the other thing that people kill each other over religion.

Yea we're on the road to a solution now I tell ya.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 15 2012,2:20 pm
I think  morality and religion go hand in hand. I think if  big business would practice more morality, our economy would not be in the shape it is. If you look at it from the world point, business is bringing the American work force down to the lower world labor status while reaping huge profits. Instead, they could bring the world up to our status.  When the populous has more money, everyone wins. More money to buy product. The way it is going, regular people have less after bills to spend on product. Right now many are in denial and will not change their spending habits that much, until forced to. Then what? The wealthy going to sell to each other?
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 15 2012,3:01 pm
I think we are all seeing how the "powers that be" have been running things, the Republicans are about to take out the Unions Nation wide, guess I didn’t need that new car, sorry Maddog, can’t afford insurance sorry CC won’t be buying anything, so Self Banished won’t have any loads to haul, your vote for this Amendment will hurt US all...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2012,3:17 pm
Sorry Expatriate, just picked up two new accounts, very large ones, gotta hire 4-5 more drivers, unions need not apply. I don't need any new vehicles at this time but starting to get the urge for a new boat.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 15 2012,4:05 pm
That's progress, going from driving a truck to hiring more help. Here's a nice boat for ya, I think it's Romney's old fishing boat. :D
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 15 2012,5:02 pm
I was thinking about a new boat also thanks to the great wage and super cheap health insurance my union provides me. And the best part is I bring home more in a year than my boss.  The only drawback is I have way less pressure, work fewer hours, and cannot get fired on a whim like he can.  :rockon:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2012,5:11 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 15 2012,4:05 pm)
QUOTE
That's progress, going from driving a truck to hiring more help. Here's a nice boat for ya, I think it's Romney's old fishing boat. :D

And what bothers you about a driver/contractor hiring help?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2012,5:18 pm

(Moparman @ Feb. 15 2012,5:02 pm)
QUOTE
I was thinking about a new boat also thanks to the great wage and super cheap health insurance my union provides me. And the best part is I bring home more in a year than my boss.  The only drawback is I have way less pressure, work fewer hours, and cannot get fired on a whim like he can.  :rockon:

Inenjoy the challenge of my work. You say you take home more than your boss? I'm guessing yo work a lot of overtime.

What kind of boat you thinking of?
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 15 2012,10:05 pm

(nphilbro @ Feb. 05 2012,11:47 am)
QUOTE
I'm just curious how the dichotomy in core values is so easily overlooked.

your picture is a good example of the dichotomy of theory vs practice :
its funny...you guys who thrive on denigrating God or anyone who believes in God constantly get Faith and religion mixed up!  the only one of the photos that says anything about religion is the one with Rand :dunce:  Funny...shes says religion is a psychological weakness...all the while shes holding a cigarette in her hand which screams psychological strength :rofl:  :rofl:
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 15 2012,10:29 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 12 2012,3:26 pm)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Feb. 11 2012,10:58 pm)
QUOTE
can you say PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY :thumbsup:

You think you’re special because you won a medal at the Special Olympics, well you’re still retarded!!
If anybody is paying you Minimum Wage that Employer should be reimbursed as they’re being severely ripped off!
I can’t take anymore I’m going to out you..Sarah Palin is your name isn’t it...

ooooh!!!  hit a sore spot did I?  dont like that someones called you on being responsible for yourself!!  your attitude, motivation, lack of innovation and cynicysm is exacatly why you work for someone else and exactly why youre so pissed off at the success of others.
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 15 2012,10:57 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 12 2012,9:06 am)
QUOTE
No, as usual YOU do not get it Santorini and CC.
The reason we are bitching is because they are cutting workers retirement benefits so they can give the CEO's exorbitant pay and benefits. why do you two think it is ok for the workers to get huge cuts so that the big guys get insane bonuses? Obviously you did not read the article.

Here is just a part of the article. And again, I do recommend reading the Ellen Schulz book.

A little over a decade ago, most companies had more than enough set aside to pay the benefits earned by two generations of workers, no matter how long they lived. But by exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations, and new accounting rules, companies essentially turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters, and profit centers.

Drawing on original analysis of company data, government filings, internal corporate documents, and confidential memos, Schultz uncovers decades of widespread deception during which employers have exaggerated their retiree burdens while lobbying for government handouts, secretly cutting pensions, tricking employees, and misleading shareholders. She reveals how companies:

   Siphoned billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings, and sold the assets in merger deals
   Used loopholes in discrimination rules to tap pension plans to pay executive parachutes, pensions, and deferred compensation.
   Exploited new accounting rules, which actually gave employers an incentive to cut benefits even when pension plans had more than enough money, because the moves generated gains that boosted profits by billions.
   Used the accounting rules to inflate retiree health obligations to justify cutting benefits, and enjoy a bigger boost to income when they subsequently cut them. The accounting rules are so flexible that employers have been able to use their retiree plans to manage earnings, using well-timed benefits cuts, changes in assumptions, and contributions to the plans.


Maybe I will become a CEO some day, but I guarantee I will not screw my workers just so I can get richer. Most likely when I start my business I will model it after the Mondragon idea. Every worker will be owner and have say in how it is run.

Oh...I DO get it!  YOU are going at it from an underdog point of view! Some of us dont allow ourselves to be put into the position of being dependent on anyone for a job!  Its called innovation!  Its called taking responsibility for yourself.  We take risks all the time.  I took control of my financial life...and it doesnt happen over night...it takes work...alot of work and long hours...sometimes no days off...and I DO NOT let ANY bank use MY money...MY money makes money for me...not for the bank!  That means no loans, no credit cards, no borrowing of any kind, paying no interest.  My money is IN the bank making money for me not the other way around!!  I and I alone am responsible for MY future and I learned this a LONG time ago.  I dont have to read any article, because I took responsibility for myself...I dont allow myself to be in a position to be taken advantage of :thumbsup:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 16 2012,5:54 am

(Santorini @ Feb. 15 2012,10:57 pm)
QUOTE
Oh...I DO get it!  YOU are going at it from an underdog point of view! Some of us dont allow ourselves to be put into the position of being dependent on anyone for a job!  Its called innovation!  Its called taking responsibility for yourself.  We take risks all the time.  I took control of my financial life...and it doesnt happen over night...it takes work...alot of work and long hours...sometimes no days off...and I DO NOT let ANY bank use MY money...MY money makes money for me...not for the bank!  That means no loans, no credit cards, no borrowing of any kind, paying no interest.  My money is IN the bank making money for me not the other way around!!  I and I alone am responsible for MY future and I learned this a LONG time ago.  I dont have to read any article, because I took responsibility for myself...I dont allow myself to be in a position to be taken advantage of :thumbsup:

How is that .08% interest working for you from the bank?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 16 2012,6:00 am
Good for you Santorini. Here's the thing though: Not everyone can work for themselves, and for the most part, people have to work in groups to accomplish anything anyway. I'm having a hard time responding to your comment because I'm not sure if you honestly think every person in America should have the ability to start their own company of one person or what. I don't understand. I also find it odd that you find yourself being judge and jury on others who DO work for someone else. And since you rely on nobody but yourself and are a self made woman you don't have to read any article or book to find out the reasons so many people are pissed off, just blame them for being "jealous of people who work hard and have more" than them. You completely miss the point.
I will be starting a company, but it won't be for financial reasons, it will be to help the environment and other people. Home sized wind turbines. Gonna be the cheapest on the market...unless Walmart starts selling them-but I doubt that.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 16 2012,6:04 am
^I would have to agree, the interest rates right now suck but I admire Santorini's philosophy. I work to eliminate my dependency on the card and the bank. If things hold together for another year or so I'll be self-financing.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 16 2012,6:40 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 15 2012,5:18 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Feb. 15 2012,5:02 pm)
QUOTE
I was thinking about a new boat also thanks to the great wage and super cheap health insurance my union provides me. And the best part is I bring home more in a year than my boss.  The only drawback is I have way less pressure, work fewer hours, and cannot get fired on a whim like he can.  :rockon:

Inenjoy the challenge of my work. You say you take home more than your boss? I'm guessing yo work a lot of overtime.

What kind of boat you thinking of?

I will admit my work is not very challenging at all but it makes my company a lot of money so it works out for us both.  I average about 2 to 3 hours of OT a week and can usually volunteer for more if I want.  

I'm seeing myself as a pontoon kind of guy.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 16 2012,9:22 am
Santorini, you are so good at holding mirrors up in front of people and judging them in what you consider is their failures. So I'm wondering how you think Jesus and or God would feel about you. What do you think their stand would be on the environment? Think they would be all gung-ho for profits at the expense of the environment and people's health?
I've seen many times in this forum where you have been busted for outright lying OR, possibly in your defense, just believing lies you are told and stubbornly sticking to those lies not even wanting to take the chance of finding out what is true or not. How do you think that bodes with The Big Guy?
You defend big bankers and execs for making crazy amounts of money while harming others, and you blame the ones they harm for being lazy and jealous.
Judging others: That's the biggest problem I have with so many christians. I'm not even sure why so many do it. From reading the bible I know that was a big thing with Jesus.
So this mirror you like to hold up to others.-Have you ever turned it around and looked at it yourself?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 16 2012,10:37 am

(Moparman @ Feb. 16 2012,6:40 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 15 2012,5:18 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Feb. 15 2012,5:02 pm)
QUOTE
I was thinking about a new boat also thanks to the great wage and super cheap health insurance my union provides me. And the best part is I bring home more in a year than my boss.  The only drawback is I have way less pressure, work fewer hours, and cannot get fired on a whim like he can.  :rockon:

Inenjoy the challenge of my work. You say you take home more than your boss? I'm guessing yo work a lot of overtime.

What kind of boat you thinking of?

I will admit my work is not very challenging at all but it makes my company a lot of money so it works out for us both.  I average about 2 to 3 hours of OT a week and can usually volunteer for more if I want.  

I'm seeing myself as a pontoon kind of guy.

I kinda like the pontoon idea too but I don't know if I can give up trolling On Superior. Awefully comfy on a 'toon. :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 16 2012,5:32 pm
Santorini (Greek: pronounced [sadoˈrini]), officially Thira (Greek: Θήρα [ˈθira]), is an island in the southern Aegean Sea, playground of the wealthy...
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 16 2012,5:40 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 16 2012,5:54 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Feb. 15 2012,10:57 pm)
QUOTE
Oh...I DO get it!  YOU are going at it from an underdog point of view! Some of us dont allow ourselves to be put into the position of being dependent on anyone for a job!  Its called innovation!  Its called taking responsibility for yourself.  We take risks all the time.  I took control of my financial life...and it doesnt happen over night...it takes work...alot of work and long hours...sometimes no days off...and I DO NOT let ANY bank use MY money...MY money makes money for me...not for the bank!  That means no loans, no credit cards, no borrowing of any kind, paying no interest.  My money is IN the bank making money for me not the other way around!!  I and I alone am responsible for MY future and I learned this a LONG time ago.  I dont have to read any article, because I took responsibility for myself...I dont allow myself to be in a position to be taken advantage of :thumbsup:

How is that .08% interest working for you from the bank?

Might I suggest some reading for you...like Rosalind likes to throw around; reading...
its called The Millionare Next Door
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 16 2012,6:06 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 16 2012,6:00 am)
QUOTE
Good for you Santorini. Here's the thing though: Not everyone can work for themselves, and for the most part, people have to work in groups to accomplish anything anyway. I'm having a hard time responding to your comment because I'm not sure if you honestly think every person in America should have the ability to start their own company of one person or what. I don't understand. I also find it odd that you find yourself being judge and jury on others who DO work for someone else. And since you rely on nobody but yourself and are a self made woman you don't have to read any article or book to find out the reasons so many people are pissed off, just blame them for being "jealous of people who work hard and have more" than them. You completely miss the point.
I will be starting a company, but it won't be for financial reasons, it will be to help the environment and other people. Home sized wind turbines. Gonna be the cheapest on the market...unless Walmart starts selling them-but I doubt that.

I am certainly not attempting to be judge and jury for anyone working for someone else...we have ALL been there...I perfer the side I am on!
You are missing MY point.  For people working for someone else it is that someone else that has the most invested.  The clock-punchers do not compare...and if they are so disgruntled and disillusioned WHY are they even staying at that job????  They need to move on and find something that satisfies their needs, desires, expectations etc.  It is that simple!  They need to OWN up and be responsible for themselves instead of griping over how good the other side has it!
And I beg to differ with you...I have BEEN on the punch a clock side...I chose to take my education and make it work for ME!!  WHY...because I got tired of the beauracracy...AND I got tired of complaining...so I put my energy into ACTION!!  and yes, anyone is capable of being in business for themselves.  We all make choices for ourselves and no one else is responsible for those choices...only us...we have to each own our choices.
Good Luck with your venture...and good for you :clap:
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 16 2012,6:20 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 16 2012,9:22 am)
QUOTE
Santorini, you are so good at holding mirrors up in front of people and judging them in what you consider is their failures. So I'm wondering how you think Jesus and or God would feel about you. What do you think their stand would be on the environment? Think they would be all gung-ho for profits at the expense of the environment and people's health?
I've seen many times in this forum where you have been busted for outright lying OR, possibly in your defense, just believing lies you are told and stubbornly sticking to those lies not even wanting to take the chance of finding out what is true or not. How do you think that bodes with The Big Guy?
You defend big bankers and execs for making crazy amounts of money while harming others, and you blame the ones they harm for being lazy and jealous.
Judging others: That's the biggest problem I have with so many christians. I'm not even sure why so many do it. From reading the bible I know that was a big thing with Jesus.
So this mirror you like to hold up to others.-Have you ever turned it around and looked at it yourself?

Okay Rosaling, enough is enough.  You show me where I have been busted for outright lying...
because I do not fall hook line and sinker for the rhetoric you guys have fallen prey to does NOT mean I have lied!  I happen to not believe in the lies you guys repeat from your so-called sources!! And personally, I think you should probably examine your OWN conscience before you start babbling on about someone else!  Al Gore is the fisherman and you are his bait...you repeat this crap he has tried to sell on virtually every spread...ever stop to think how much money he and bottom-feeders like him are making because people like you believe his crap :crazy:
and one more thing Rosalind...I NEVER judge...I just call it like I see it!!!
Get over the big money people...they were here long before you came along and they will still be here long after your demise...you think youre the first bait to come along and attempt to preach to the masses about the haves and have nots :dunce:   You must be young...this has been going on for years!!!!!
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 16 2012,6:49 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 16 2012,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
Santorini (Greek: pronounced [sadoˈrini]), officially Thira (Greek: Θήρα [ˈθira]), is an island in the southern Aegean Sea, playground of the wealthy...

Absolutely...

My FAVORITE place to vacation :p
but I think you have the wealthy thing mixed up with Mykonos..that is actually the real party island :beer:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2012,5:32 am
I got a kick out of watching Maxine Waters today calling the Republicans demons, talk about true colors. :D
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 17 2012,7:36 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 16 2012,10:37 am)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Feb. 16 2012,6:40 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 15 2012,5:18 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Feb. 15 2012,5:02 pm)
QUOTE
I was thinking about a new boat also thanks to the great wage and super cheap health insurance my union provides me. And the best part is I bring home more in a year than my boss.  The only drawback is I have way less pressure, work fewer hours, and cannot get fired on a whim like he can.  :rockon:

Inenjoy the challenge of my work. You say you take home more than your boss? I'm guessing yo work a lot of overtime.

What kind of boat you thinking of?

I will admit my work is not very challenging at all but it makes my company a lot of money so it works out for us both.  I average about 2 to 3 hours of OT a week and can usually volunteer for more if I want.  

I'm seeing myself as a pontoon kind of guy.

I kinda like the pontoon idea too but I don't know if I can give up trolling On Superior. Awefully comfy on a 'toon. :thumbsup:

You seem more like a hot air balloon guy to me, for some reason.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2012,10:27 am
Don't strain yourself pal
Posted by grassman on Feb. 17 2012,3:59 pm
Santorini at the beach. :D
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J35wNb5tJUQ&hd=1 >
Posted by grassman on Feb. 17 2012,4:17 pm
I'm sorry,that was totally uncalled for. :blush:  :laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2012,6:36 pm
Don't even Grassman, you enjoyed that. :cool:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 17 2012,6:41 pm

(Santorini @ Feb. 16 2012,6:49 pm)
QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Feb. 16 2012,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
Santorini (Greek: pronounced [sadoˈrini]), officially Thira (Greek: Θήρα [ˈθira]), is an island in the southern Aegean Sea, playground of the wealthy...

Absolutely...

My FAVORITE place to vacation :p
but I think you have the wealthy thing mixed up with Mykonos..that is actually the real party island :beer:

So here we have our true Republican, she spouts Milton Friedman “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” she whines about Teachers pay, she wants the common working man’s union abolished so he can’t afford to feed his family, yet she CLAIMS to vacation in the southern Aegean Sea..her kind will be the death of capitalism..
Posted by grassman on Feb. 17 2012,7:33 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 17 2012,6:36 pm)
QUOTE
Don't even Grassman, you enjoyed that. :cool:

I guess I must admit, I laughed my ass off! :laugh:
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 17 2012,8:33 pm
Ayn Rand can go suck eggs, for all I care.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 18 2012,6:47 pm
QUOTE
Issues: Right to Work for Less
Background: Minnesota is among the 28 states that have no so-called "Right-to-Work" law. These laws ban collectively bargained union-security agreements that require workers to pay for union representation. In other words, in "Right-to-Work" states, workers and employers are banned from negotiating contract provisions insisting all employees covered under that contract join the union (referred to as a "union shop.")

According to a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision: "A union shop arrangement has been thought to distribute fairly the cost of these (representative) activities among those who benefit, and it counteracts the incentive that employees might otherwise have to become ‘free riders’ -- to refuse to contribute to the union while obtaining benefits of union representation that necessarily accrue to all employees."

The idea is that everyone benefits from the contract and its protections, so everyone should pay their fair share of the costs of union representation.

In 1947, the Republican-controlled Congress passed an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act allowing states to ban union-security agreements. Since that time, 22 states have done so -- most of them in the South right after the amendment was passed. Union membership plummeted in those states, and today the rate of unionization is about half what it is in free-bargaining states.

Labor’s Position: Proponents of right-to-work laws say no one should be "forced" to join a union. But, as with all other parts of a collective bargaining agreement, union security clauses must be approved by the workers and the employer. If the majority of workers don’t want a "union shop," they won’t ask for it.

Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that’s exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living, substandard legal protections and more dangerous working conditions for all workers – not just union members -- in right-to-work states.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that 19 of the 25 states with the highest worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while just three of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. None of the 22 right-to-work states had an average annual pay level above the U.S. average.

When wages fall, state tax revenues fall. That means less funding for education, transportation and other vital programs. Right-to-work is bad not just for union members, but for everyone.

But proponents of right-to-work don’t care about that. Their goal is to harm unions.

The labor movement in Minnesota will aggressively fight any attempt to pass right-to-work in this state.

Given a recession brought on by unchecked corporate greed and scandal, and given that we are living in an era of relatively stagnant wages, diminishing health benefits and less retirement security, we should be strengthening workers’ ability to organize unions, not discouraging and busting them.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 18 2012,10:13 pm
^again, so I don't have the right to work.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 19 2012,5:53 am
I think a good example of chasing the right to work, would be Queens. Did they not move down south after a right to work state? How are they faring today? I think they just diminished into nothing didn't they? They found out the quality of workforce, the hard way.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,8:32 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 18 2012,10:13 pm)
QUOTE
^again, so I don't have the right to work.

Nobody has a right to work. How would passing this legislation give anyone a right to work?
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,8:34 am

(grassman @ Feb. 19 2012,5:53 am)
QUOTE
I think a good example of chasing the right to work, would be Queens. Did they not move down south after a right to work state? How are they faring today? I think they just diminished into nothing didn't they? They found out the quality of workforce, the hard way.

Or Progress Castings?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,9:01 am
Or more than likely pushed out be overseas manufacturing.

It' a global market and if you're not competitive, you're out of business.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 19 2012,9:22 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 18 2012,10:13 pm)
QUOTE
^again, so I don't have the right to work.

Unions just don’t happen on their own, it’s the continual abuse of the worker by the Company that finally makes the worker’s stand together. When management is unfair, treats the employees like expendables instead of valued assets what do you do, you can approach management on your own they’ll show you the door.
Maybe you're working for a good company, one that treats the employee with respect, “a fair days pay for a fair days work” to quote FDR, those types of employers will never see unions on their doorstep, and hooray for that employer!
Unions help make sure our nation prioritizes working people’s issues, that's one of the reasons MOST campaign contributions go to the Democratic Party because the Republican’s are continually trying to erode workers rights! Unions hold corporations accountable, make workplaces safe, protect Social Security and retirement, fight for quality health care and ensure that working people have time to spend with their families.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,9:32 am
^  :notworthy:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,9:41 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 19 2012,9:22 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 18 2012,10:13 pm)
QUOTE
^again, so I don't have the right to work.

Unions just don’t happen on their own, it’s the continual abuse of the worker by the Company that finally makes the worker’s stand together. When management is unfair, treats the employees like expendables instead of valued assets what do you do, you can approach management on your own they’ll show you the door.
Maybe you're working for a good company, one that treats the employee with respect, “a fair days pay for a fair days work” to quote FDR, those types of employers will never see unions on their doorstep, and hooray for that employer!
Unions help make sure our nation prioritizes working people’s issues, that's one of the reasons MOST campaign contributions go to the Democratic Party because the Republican’s are continually trying to erode workers rights! Unions hold corporations accountable, make workplaces safe, protect Social Security and retirement, fight for quality health care and ensure that working people have time to spend with their families.

So if you don't like the company you're working for, don't work there, it's as simple as that. The employer has ho obligation to give you a job and an an employee has no "right" to a job.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,10:42 am
That's why I like the company I work for because of the wages and benefits the union negotiated for me.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 19 2012,11:13 am

(Santorini @ Feb. 16 2012,6:20 pm)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 16 2012,9:22 am)
QUOTE
Santorini, you are so good at holding mirrors up in front of people and judging them in what you consider is their failures. So I'm wondering how you think Jesus and or God would feel about you. What do you think their stand would be on the environment? Think they would be all gung-ho for profits at the expense of the environment and people's health?
I've seen many times in this forum where you have been busted for outright lying OR, possibly in your defense, just believing lies you are told and stubbornly sticking to those lies not even wanting to take the chance of finding out what is true or not. How do you think that bodes with The Big Guy?
You defend big bankers and execs for making crazy amounts of money while harming others, and you blame the ones they harm for being lazy and jealous.
Judging others: That's the biggest problem I have with so many christians. I'm not even sure why so many do it. From reading the bible I know that was a big thing with Jesus.
So this mirror you like to hold up to others.-Have you ever turned it around and looked at it yourself?

Okay Rosaling, enough is enough.  You show me where I have been busted for outright lying...
because I do not fall hook line and sinker for the rhetoric you guys have fallen prey to does NOT mean I have lied!  I happen to not believe in the lies you guys repeat from your so-called sources!! And personally, I think you should probably examine your OWN conscience before you start babbling on about someone else!  Al Gore is the fisherman and you are his bait...you repeat this crap he has tried to sell on virtually every spread...ever stop to think how much money he and bottom-feeders like him are making because people like you believe his crap :crazy:
and one more thing Rosalind...I NEVER judge...I just call it like I see it!!!
Get over the big money people...they were here long before you came along and they will still be here long after your demise...you think youre the first bait to come along and attempt to preach to the masses about the haves and have nots :dunce:   You must be young...this has been going on for years!!!!!

ok, I'm not going through all of your posts...YET. One lie (or misinformation) you perpetuate is that Florida had no problems with the gulf oil spill, and that the southern states BARELY had any problems. I trust my friends who lived near one of the beaches in Florida. I know they didn't photo shop the pictures they sent me, they wouldn't lie. They were literally heartbroken and sick when dead dolphins and turtles started washing up on the shore. They spent alot of time picking up tarballs off the beach. There are numerous videos and articles from reliable sources on the internet showing the extent of the damage. There are numerous environmental agencies and even human rights agencies fighting hard to get the truth out.

Al Gore!! YOU are the only person who ever brings up his name!! I never once have. I have asked you to use your own common sense about continuing to pump tons of poisons into the ground, air and water. There are a couple of ENTIRE towns whose water supply has been poisoned by fracking. Not to mention thousands of people whose private wells have been poisoned. Again: there is tons of information all over the internet. But since you want to keep bringing up the "climate change hoax". Ok.
All scientists agree that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere DOES contribute to changing our weather. That is a truth. NASA has even come out and admitted that human actions are contributing to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus changing the climate.
As for the jobs thing: I have never tried "preaching to the masses". It just occurs to me that when corporations and big wigs in certain companies have insanely high profits and bonuses, that perhaps the workers could possibly be reaping the benefits of their labor as well.
You still haven't answered how you think God/Jesus would feel about putting profits over people.
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 19 2012,11:18 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 17 2012,6:41 pm)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Feb. 16 2012,6:49 pm)
QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Feb. 16 2012,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
Santorini (Greek: pronounced [sadoˈrini]), officially Thira (Greek: Θήρα [ˈθira]), is an island in the southern Aegean Sea, playground of the wealthy...

Absolutely...

My FAVORITE place to vacation :p
but I think you have the wealthy thing mixed up with Mykonos..that is actually the real party island :beer:

So here we have our true Republican, she spouts Milton Friedman “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” she whines about Teachers pay, she wants the common working man’s union abolished so he can’t afford to feed his family, yet she CLAIMS to vacation in the southern Aegean Sea..her kind will be the death of capitalism..

You should try it...vacationing I mean!!  I pay my own way...
You should really get out and experience the world...
Thats the difference between those of us in the US vs some other places in Europe...here we LIVE to work whereas there they WORK to live!!
Posted by usmcr on Feb. 19 2012,11:19 am
unions, where would we be with out them? 50  - 60 hour work weeks, deplorable working conditions, no benefits, no vacations, your job at the whim of a so called "boss", i could go on but i think you get the picture. i would suggest the reading of upton sinclair's book " the Jungle" it deals with the immigrants survival in Chicago in the meat packing business. i agree the unions are not perfect but then neither is management. imho the unions transformed the lower class into the middle class which elevated the standard of living for millions of americans. increased wages became the vehicle by which higher education became available to future generations. access to medial care benefited everyone.  through unionization the united states prospered. take a look now at the ever expanding distribution of wealth. the middle class is shrinking & the upper class is becoming increasingly more wealthy.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 19 2012,11:23 am

(usmcr @ Feb. 19 2012,11:19 am)
QUOTE
unions, where would we be with out them? 50  - 60 hour work weeks, deplorable working conditions, no benefits, no vacations, your job at the whim of a so called "boss", i could go on but i think you get the picture. i would suggest the reading of upton sinclair's book " the Jungle" it deals with the immigrants survival in Chicago in the meat packing business. i agree the unions are not perfect but then neither is management. imho the unions transformed the lower class into the middle class which elevated the standard of living for millions of americans. increased wages became the vehicle by which higher education became available to future generations. access to medial care benefited everyone.  through unionization the united states prospered. take a look now at the ever expanding distribution of wealth. the middle class is shrinking & the upper class is becoming increasingly more wealthy.

:clap:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,12:48 pm

(usmcr @ Feb. 19 2012,11:19 am)
QUOTE
unions, where would we be with out them? 50  - 60 hour work weeks, deplorable working conditions, no benefits, no vacations, your job at the whim of a so called "boss", i could go on but i think you get the picture. i would suggest the reading of upton sinclair's book " the Jungle" it deals with the immigrants survival in Chicago in the meat packing business. i agree the unions are not perfect but then neither is management. imho the unions transformed the lower class into the middle class which elevated the standard of living for millions of americans. increased wages became the vehicle by which higher education became available to future generations. access to medial care benefited everyone.  through unionization the united states prospered. take a look now at the ever expanding distribution of wealth. the middle class is shrinking & the upper class is becoming increasingly more wealthy.

OK,Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906 and I would believe that working conditions were pretty horrid then.Jimmy Hoffa was organizing the teamster starting sometime in the thirties. A lot has happened over the years but the one thing that has improved working conditions is(oh I hate to say it) in gov. regulations and even today they continue to keep working conditions safe. All an employee has to do is contact OSHA and the crap flys.Unions have outlived their usefulness and to make it worse they've elevated the race to mediocrity , the "I don't have to contribute anything more, I've done my job" attitude IMHO a union worker is usually lazy and incompetent.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,2:01 pm
A truck driver calling other people lazy! Wow! That takes the cake.  I sure the women at our plant could out work most truck drivers. Low wages and no benefits are sure way to win the race to the bottom. Maybe you should move to China since that is how you feel all workers should be treated.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,2:24 pm
^I can't move to China, I'm too busy hauling all the product they're sending over here.
Posted by usmcr on Feb. 19 2012,2:40 pm
S.B. - i respect your opinion, however i respectfully disagree with your comments! characterizing union members as usually as lazy & incompetent is like saying managers are usually ignorant & insensitive to the workers safety & well being.  i am sure there are persons in both that fit the description but hardly not the norm! in regards to osha, it would seem if management would be more mindful of the hazards in the workplace there would not have to be so many regulations to create a safe work environment. an accident not only creates pain, suffering & sometimes death to the worker but it causes down time, loss of productive, lots of paper work, etc for management.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,3:30 pm
I did cross the line a bit there and I apologize for that, all involved in this discussion. I have though, over the years, seen my share of sloth on both sides. Maybe it's more glaring when it comes from a union member because one would expect more.

As you probably come to realize, I am extremely independant and would like to stay that way. A couple of times over the years there have been attempts to unite the Indys up here and it's lead to nothing but disaster. I do not want unite, except for about three years I have never worked for anyone other than myself.If union were to come to my shop I want the option to say no.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,3:33 pm
By the way, Expatriate, Moparman,USMC, Roz and GrassmanI've enjoyed the debate immensely. :notworthy:
Posted by usmcr on Feb. 19 2012,3:41 pm
S.B. - i think it will be safe to say that we agree to disagree, which is the american way in my estimation!
i to appreciate a good discussion without disparaging remarks! dialogue leads to understanding, a fact that the goverments in this world would need more of imho!
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,4:03 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 19 2012,3:33 pm)
QUOTE
By the way, Expatriate, Moparman,USMC, Roz and GrassmanI've enjoyed the debate immensely. :notworthy:

Ditto!
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 19 2012,5:11 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 19 2012,11:13 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Feb. 16 2012,6:20 pm)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 16 2012,9:22 am)
QUOTE
Santorini, you are so good at holding mirrors up in front of people and judging them in what you consider is their failures. So I'm wondering how you think Jesus and or God would feel about you. What do you think their stand would be on the environment? Think they would be all gung-ho for profits at the expense of the environment and people's health?
I've seen many times in this forum where you have been busted for outright lying OR, possibly in your defense, just believing lies you are told and stubbornly sticking to those lies not even wanting to take the chance of finding out what is true or not. How do you think that bodes with The Big Guy?
You defend big bankers and execs for making crazy amounts of money while harming others, and you blame the ones they harm for being lazy and jealous.
Judging others: That's the biggest problem I have with so many christians. I'm not even sure why so many do it. From reading the bible I know that was a big thing with Jesus.
So this mirror you like to hold up to others.-Have you ever turned it around and looked at it yourself?

Okay Rosaling, enough is enough.  You show me where I have been busted for outright lying...
because I do not fall hook line and sinker for the rhetoric you guys have fallen prey to does NOT mean I have lied!  I happen to not believe in the lies you guys repeat from your so-called sources!! And personally, I think you should probably examine your OWN conscience before you start babbling on about someone else!  Al Gore is the fisherman and you are his bait...you repeat this crap he has tried to sell on virtually every spread...ever stop to think how much money he and bottom-feeders like him are making because people like you believe his crap :crazy:
and one more thing Rosalind...I NEVER judge...I just call it like I see it!!!
Get over the big money people...they were here long before you came along and they will still be here long after your demise...you think youre the first bait to come along and attempt to preach to the masses about the haves and have nots :dunce:   You must be young...this has been going on for years!!!!!

ok, I'm not going through all of your posts...YET. One lie (or misinformation) you perpetuate is that Florida had no problems with the gulf oil spill, and that the southern states BARELY had any problems. I trust my friends who lived near one of the beaches in Florida. I know they didn't photo shop the pictures they sent me, they wouldn't lie. They were literally heartbroken and sick when dead dolphins and turtles started washing up on the shore. They spent alot of time picking up tarballs off the beach. There are numerous videos and articles from reliable sources on the internet showing the extent of the damage. There are numerous environmental agencies and even human rights agencies fighting hard to get the truth out.

Al Gore!! YOU are the only person who ever brings up his name!! I never once have. I have asked you to use your own common sense about continuing to pump tons of poisons into the ground, air and water. There are a couple of ENTIRE towns whose water supply has been poisoned by fracking. Not to mention thousands of people whose private wells have been poisoned. Again: there is tons of information all over the internet. But since you want to keep bringing up the "climate change hoax". Ok.
All scientists agree that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere DOES contribute to changing our weather. That is a truth. NASA has even come out and admitted that human actions are contributing to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus changing the climate.
As for the jobs thing: I have never tried "preaching to the masses". It just occurs to me that when corporations and big wigs in certain companies have insanely high profits and bonuses, that perhaps the workers could possibly be reaping the benefits of their labor as well.
You still haven't answered how you think God/Jesus would feel about putting profits over people.

I figured that was all you could come up with!
Number One Rosalind...I was IN Florida from the Panhandle, Pensacola Beach, Destin to Miami South Beach, and the Keys...I was IN Alabama, Gulf Shores area...I was IN Biloxi ON the Gulf...I was in Texas...
I was ON the pristine white sandy beaches...I talked with the LOCALS where MY information came from.
THEY are the ones that said the MEDIA has over-blown the thing...those are not my words...they are repeated words from the people I talked to while I was in those places.  So get your facts straight.
Secondly...YOU are the one who continually perseverates on the environment etc. etc. etc.  Who exactly do you think takes the credit for getting that ball rolling??  An Inconvenient Truth sound familiar!  HE as perpetuated this movement you are into and he is laughing all the way to the bank :angel:
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 19 2012,5:14 pm

(usmcr @ Feb. 19 2012,2:40 pm)
QUOTE
S.B. - i respect your opinion, however i respectfully disagree with your comments! characterizing union members as usually as lazy & incompetent is like saying managers are usually ignorant & insensitive to the workers safety & well being.  i am sure there are persons in both that fit the description but hardly not the norm! in regards to osha, it would seem if management would be more mindful of the hazards in the workplace there would not have to be so many regulations to create a safe work environment. an accident not only creates pain, suffering & sometimes death to the worker but it causes down time, loss of productive, lots of paper work, etc for management.

One question;
Why does OSHA notify a company they are coming for an inspection :dunno:
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 19 2012,5:24 pm
Rosalind,
In answer to you ever-pressing question about God...
what was that saying...
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day,
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime...

God teaches us to look out for our fellow man...thus we have the societal creations of welfare, continuous unemployment, food stamps, free healthcare for poverty, free public education, housing, not to mention all the donations to organizations that help with poor and down trodden around the globe as well as at home.   Now besides that you want people to give their livelihood away because someone else never learned how to fish?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 19 2012,6:06 pm
I've always wondered about notification of inspection by alot of gov. agencies, OSHA, food inspections,DOT audits etc.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 19 2012,8:21 pm
To give management time to make things look pretty.
Posted by usmcr on Feb. 19 2012,9:33 pm
i can relate to that. when i was in the military we would get advavnce warning when we were going to have an inspector general inspection. the brass then got in a huff & made sure that every thing was in order. it must be a goverment thing!  :dunno:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 19 2012,11:01 pm

(Santorini @ Feb. 19 2012,11:18 am)
QUOTE
You should try it...vacationing I mean!!  I pay my own way...
You should really get out and experience the world...
Thats the difference between those of us in the US vs some other places in Europe...here we LIVE to work whereas there they WORK to live!!

Finally, finally, I get to use this! This totally shows how out of touch you are with the way our country is going. You have your's, the heck with everyone else. One true Elitist bloodsucker. I have my traveling because I am way up the food chain because of all you people I step and frown on. Do you ever listen to your own thoughts? I am so glad I am not a person like you! Today more and more people are just worrying about keeping the family together, a place to live and food on the table. Enjoy your cruise. :p
Posted by grassman on Feb. 19 2012,11:16 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 19 2012,9:01 am)
QUOTE
Or more than likely pushed out be overseas manufacturing.

It' a global market and if you're not competitive, you're out of business.

So, I am against the new workings of Mexican Trucks coming into the US. I have nothing to do with trucking, but I have your back. What have you got for other people. If we don't look out for others, nobody is looking out for us except, me.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 20 2012,4:33 am
I don't have a grudge against the Mexican trucks as long as they play by the same rules.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 20 2012,6:26 am
QUOTE
Corporate Special Interests Fuel Anti-Middle Class “Right to Work” Push in Minnesota

Today, a think tank backed by corporate special interests released a study promoting anti-middle class legislation in Minnesota.The right-wing Center of the American Experiment’s report urges lawmakers to make Minnesota a low-wage, anti-middle class “Right to Work” state.

“It should come as no surprise that corporate special interests, who are pushing similar anti-middle class legislation in Indiana and New Hampshire, are trying to impose their agenda on hardworking Minnesotans,” said Minnesota AFL-CIO President Shar Knutson. “The fact remains that these laws exist so corporate CEOs can pay their workers less, cut worker benefits, and line their own pockets.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national group backed by corporate special interests, has been pushing similar legislation across the country over the last two years. A recent report identified John Gibbs from Comcast as ALEC’s Corporate State Chairman. Gibbs also serves as Center of the American Experiment’s Vice President.

Contrary to the think tank talking points, anti-middle class “Right to Work” laws actually hurt economic development:

* Wages for all workers are driven down. Both union and non-union workers in states with these laws make an average of $5,538 less per year than those living in states without the law.

* Jobs are lost. Not only do these laws fail to create jobs, but they actually cause local economies to lose them. According to the Economic Policy Institute, every $1 million in wage cuts, results in six jobs lost in the local economy.

* Benefits are reduced. Employers in anti-middle class right to work states are less likely to offer benefits and workers are currently losing health insurance coverage 70 percent faster than in free bargaining states.

* Workplace safety suffers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 50 percent higher in anti-middle class right to work states.

* Less investment in schools. These laws mean lower school funding, more layoffs and larger class sizes. For example, during the 2008 – 2009 school year, anti-middle class right to work states spent only $9,005 per student, compared to $10,966 in Minnesota.

“We’ve seen the conflict these anti-middle class attacks are causing in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and many other states,” Knutson added. “Fortunately, there is bi-partisan opposition to this un-Minnesotan measure.”
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 20 2012,7:16 am
Stop it Expatriate, you're killings with the subjective info.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 20 2012,8:08 am
Not until the fat lady sings, you may want to bend over while the Republicans stick it to the workers again, as long as I’m on the top side of the sod I'll stand my ground...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 20 2012,9:35 am
Republicans,Democrats neither is any better than the other and witch I can proudly say I am neither.
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 20 2012,10:47 am

(grassman @ Feb. 19 2012,11:01 pm)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Feb. 19 2012,11:18 am)
QUOTE
You should try it...vacationing I mean!!  I pay my own way...
You should really get out and experience the world...
Thats the difference between those of us in the US vs some other places in Europe...here we LIVE to work whereas there they WORK to live!!

Finally, finally, I get to use this! This totally shows how out of touch you are with the way our country is going. You have your's, the heck with everyone else. One true Elitist bloodsucker. I have my traveling because I am way up the food chain because of all you people I step and frown on. Do you ever listen to your own thoughts? I am so glad I am not a person like you! Today more and more people are just worrying about keeping the family together, a place to live and food on the table. Enjoy your cruise. :p

You are wrong...
More and more people are worrying about WHO is going to take care of them.  Want proof of this; just watch MSNBC, Current and such any time of the day :angel:
You act and sound as though I have no poverty experience.  Ya wanna debate who has had it worse?
You or me?  Difference between us is that I have taken charge and learned to live within my means; no expectations, no demanding someone take care of me because its my right.  I choose not to drive new cars, I choose to live in the same house for 35 years, I choose not to use credit.  I could have chosen to fall prey to the exploitation of credit to have all new things...I chose not to, therefore, today, yes, I am doing better than most because I have learned financial dicipline, I have learned to save for things. When I couldnt find a job out of college that met my criteria, I looked into different fields, got tired of the beauracracy and created my own.  (BYW I did this with 3 kids and a disabled spouse).  So I took a chance!  and you people have this incessant need to ridicule this type of ingenuity and motivation? and demand more for yourselves without taking the risks?  it is that line of thinking that is selfish and self-serving not the other way around.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 20 2012,11:14 am
^^^ Oy Vey , another one spouting rightwing rhetoric while on the GOVERNMENT DOLE for the sick, lame and lazy! To disable for WORK but not for making babies!!!
Posted by Santorini on Feb. 20 2012,12:32 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 20 2012,11:14 am)
QUOTE
^^^ Oy Vey , another one spouting rightwing rhetoric while on the GOVERNMENT DOLE for the sick, lame and lazy! To disable for WORK but not for making babies!!!

you are far greener with envy of people than I first suspected :dunce: What government dole for the sick?  Who made babies?  Typical liberal left winger :rofl:   Assumptions, no fact, just jealous assumptions.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 21 2012,9:31 am
The Republican stance has been to abolish the federal Social Security and Social Security Disability program in favor of privation, individual accounts, this is simply smoke and mirrors to move your retirement to Wall-Streeter’s pockets..

Perhaps your husband is deserving of the Disability benefits he receives than again there are far too many slackers on the Disability Program. It’s an insult to those of us who pay into this program to see slackers with back-pain, depression, self-infected diabetes, obesity, emphysema, had a minor heart attack or stroke, color blind, etc. to sick to work supposedly but not to sick to party at Eddies, Harold's or the Zoo all day..

It’s unbelievable every other commercial on TV is some law firm telling you they can get the Disability Benefits you deserve, same with the VA it’s a total taxpayer rip-off... An INSULT to those of US who work or have served in the Military Honorably..

My views are hardly what you perceive them to be, My sympathies favor the working man hence my Democratic stance...
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 21 2012,9:56 am
QUOTE
The Republican stance has been to abolish the federal Social Security and Social Security Disability program in favor of privation, individual accounts, this is simply smoke and mirrors to move your retirement to Wall-Streeter’s pockets..

I am the last person to be a stool pigeon for the republitards but I don't see where there should be a problem in letting a person decide how they want to invest THEIR money. Especially when one of the choices is the gov't, and we all know how much we can trust them.  Repubs and Dem's alike.

QUOTE
It’s unbelievable every other commercial on TV is some law firm telling you they can get the Disability Benefits you deserve, same with the VA it’s a total taxpayer rip-off... An INSULT to those of US who work or have served in the Military Honorably..

:clap:
I am sick of seeing an ambulance chaser commercial during every break.  

QUOTE
My views are hardly what you perceive them to be, My sympathies favor the working man hence my Democratic stance...

This where we part, I don't see either party favoring the working man, only themselves.  Until gov't work is no longer a for profit job, it will only get worse IMO.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 21 2012,10:29 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 21 2012,9:31 am)
QUOTE
It’s an insult to those of us who pay into this program to see slackers with back-pain, depression, self-infected diabetes, obesity, emphysema, had a minor heart attack or stroke, color blind, etc. to sick to work supposedly but not to sick to party at Eddies, Harold's or the Zoo all day..

I know way too many people like this. Pop into the Hiawatha bar in Austin, any given afternoon...
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 21 2012,7:07 pm
QUOTE
Say no to right-to-work
Article by: AARON SOJOURNER
This state is doing quite well without such a policy, and talk about freedom (which workers already have) is meant to mislead and divide.


A right-to-work law will not work for Minnesota. On the contrary, states with RTW laws should repeal them and join free-bargaining Minnesota. We enjoy a higher standard of living, stronger economic growth, a better education system and a more promising strategic position for the future.
A new report published by the Center of the American Experiment argues that Minnesota has missed growth opportunities because of our free-bargaining policy. But the report's own data, covering 1970 to 2010, show that Minnesotans' average personal incomes grew faster than the U.S. average. We started below average and are now well ahead.

Though this evidence seems to recommend Minnesota as a model, the report stretches to draw a different conclusion: "Had Minnesota grown as much in the first decade of the twenty-first century as it did in the last decade of the twentieth, per capita incomes would have ended the decade an extraordinary $8,972 higher per person. ... Minnesota's recent sluggish growth almost certainly reflects rather meager rates of accumulation of human and physical capital... [and] below-average adaptation of the state to innovations and technological changes."

The report says RTW will get us back on top because reducing wages in the short run will attract globe-trotting capital to Minnesota and raise earnings over time.

In truth, Minnesota's decline in income growth last decade was due to the severe recession set off by the 2007 financial crisis. Growth rates fell everywhere. Minnesota labor law didn't cause the problem, and changing the law won't solve it.

Two independent economists recently reported on how wages changed after Oklahoma adopted RTW in 2001, compared with similar states that did not adopt RTW. After the adoption of RTW, wages for nonunion workers in Oklahoma fell behind. After 10 years, Oklahoma employees are still waiting for the promised "long run" wage boost to kick in.

I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd move to Minnesota.

It's true that adapting to new economic realities and building human capital are central challenges facing Minnesota. But we should not emulate the policies of RTW states. They are meeting those challenges badly and losing ground.

In 2010, the Kauffman Foundation ranked states on how well "the structure of state economies match the ideal structure of the New Economy." Minnesota ranked 13th out of 50 -- good, but not great. However, 20 of the 22 states that had RTW at the time ranked below Minnesota. Nine of the top 10 states were free-bargaining states like Minnesota, while 8 of the bottom 10 states were RTW states.

It is also informative to look at changes in this ranking for states that most recently switched from free-bargaining to RTW. They believed the promises of RTW advocates. How is that working out?

In the 35 years prior to 2012, only Oklahoma and Idaho adopted RTW. Today they are failing to adapt to the new economy. Oklahoma experienced the single biggest drop in Kauffman's New Economy rankings, falling from 33rd in 2002 to 42nd in 2010. The best that can be said about Idaho is that it did not fall as far as Oklahoma, though it did fall from 20th to 27th.

How has Minnesota fared over the same years with our free-bargaining policy? We climbed one spot, from 14th to 13th. While we have more work to do, the evidence does not suggest that free-bargaining hampers innovation.

On the challenge of building human capital, free-bargaining Minnesota is again outperforming RTW states. Our median personal income is higher than 21 of the 22 states that had RTW before this year, as is our per capita economic output, our share of adults in the labor force, our share of population with a high school diploma and our share with a bachelor's degree. We have a lower poverty rate and a higher share of residents with health insurance than all of those 22 states. Minnesota also beats them all on eighth-grade math scores and ties for the top on reading.

We don't just beat the RTW average -- we beat the whole group again and again on measure after measure of human-capital accumulation.

The RTW low-wage strategy would be a retreat from what differentiates Minnesota and gives us our competitive advantage. Employers value Minnesotans' work ethic, our well-educated and creative workforce, and the high quality of life Minnesota communities provide. Going into competition for low-wage jobs against southern states, China and Bangladesh is a losing strategy. That's why state economic development officials now focus on attracting higher-tech, higher-wage companies providing jobs that can support local families and that are less likely to be shipped abroad.

Another argument for RTW is that free-bargaining policies violate employees' economic liberty. However, federal labor law guarantees every employee at any workplace the choice to belong to a union or not and to contribute to union political activities or to opt out. State RTW laws add nothing to this but hot air.

Minnesota and the 26 other free-bargaining states allow employees and employers to negotiate and sign a private, voluntary contract that determines the condition of employment in a work group. Conditions of employment usually include wages, benefits and payment of "fair-share" fees to cover the costs of employees' working together to advocate for themselves at work. Wherever fair-share fees are required, both the employer and the majority of employees have agreed to it. RTW laws bar these private, voluntary agreements.

RTW is designed to make it difficult for employees to join together by ensuring that every single employee is tempted to shirk.

Should condo owners be forced to pay association fees just to live where they want? Should we pass a "right to squat" law that frees condo owners from compulsory association dues approved by majority vote? It is irresponsible to demand the benefits of a group arrangement while refusing to bear the costs. But this is exactly the "liberty" RTW demands.

Minnesota's past and future successes depend on our capacity to produce and support a high-productivity, high-skill workforce. We have many ways to do this, and choosing among them should be the central focus of our economic policy debates.

RTW is a false promise that risks dividing us from one another and distracting us from seizing the opportunities ahead.

Aaron Sojourner is an economist at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,4:32 am
Expatriate, have you ever wondered why companies pas Minnesota by when they're looking form a new place to set up shop? Or way companies pull up stakes and move somewhere else?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,4:56 am
OK Expatriate, let's try this, I will vote to keep Minnesota a closed shop if,on the ballot, there is a provision to end employer withholding of union dues. The union member would be responsible for paying his or her own dues.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 22 2012,6:27 am
I seen on the news last night that in China where your Apple products are made, they get $ 2 an hour at 60+ hours a week! After being investigated by Apple, they now are going to get a raise. $2.20? How about overtime. We Americans are so selfish. :sarcasm:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,6:50 am
^what the market will bear.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,6:51 am
Or in ther words, sucks to be them.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 22 2012,8:59 am
I don't see Minnesota becoming North Dakota or Wyoming or Mississippi or whoever else is on that list.

Life is a marathon not a sprint.

Having people belong to collectives should be mandatory to help sustain them, and the country, for the long haul.

North Dakota may be booming now. But look at all the booming that happened in other parts of the country in the last 10-20 years. And look where a lot of it is today.

The trickle down theory and worshiping of anybody who is perceived to be a so called, business person or corporation. Died with things like: The Arther Anderson/ Enron scandals and every other collapse in The United States.

The Reagan worship theory had a good run. But it needs to be supplanted.

It needs to go away.  

Just like rap music does.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,9:23 am
From what I hear from people I talk to MN going to become a open shop state. Companies will again want to set up shop here.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 22 2012,10:02 am
Well Santorini, I'm done trying to get you to see the FACTS. Luckily the main stream media is even having a difficult time keeping the gulf oil out of the news. Too many people all along the gulf are sick and fed up with the ads BP has put out lying about the gulf being "safe and pristine" . Every time there's a storm, oil and Corexit wash up on most of the beaches, from one end of the gulf to the other.- Especially after Tropical Storm Lee last September.  More and more people are out filming it, more and more people are documenting the dead dolphins, turtles and other sea life that keep washing up on shore. Fishermen taking pictures and video of the deformed and visibly poisoned seafood they are catching (when they catch anything). More and more organizations are forming and donating their time.
This group < http://onwingsofcare.org/protect...il.html >  even makes regular flights over the gulf filming not only the BP leak (which is still leaking) but getting video evidence of many other leaks in the gulf.
There is information, pictures and video all over the internet. Not sure why you want to keep denying what is happening down there to those poor people. Awhile back someone outed you as being Palin or Bachman (can't remember which it was) . I'm beginning to think your last name is Koch (or one of their ilk) .


Speaking of the Koch brothers. Grassman, you like Bernie Sanders- I do too. Even though he is a politican, he appears to be one of the rare good guys. He's going after the Koch brothers bigtime. Bernie is a brave brave man! Check out some of the videos on   < http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/videos >   . The Social Security one is probably my favorite. Some of their industries are poisoning entire towns. These guys should be in prison. Such a crazy world.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 22 2012,12:55 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 22 2012,4:32 am)
QUOTE
Expatriate, have you ever wondered why companies pas Minnesota by when they're looking form a new place to set up shop? Or way companies pull up stakes and move somewhere else?

They can take their minimum wage no benefit jobs out of here as far as I'm concerned. Take the riff raff with them as well.
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 22 2012,2:30 pm
QUOTE
Having people belong to collectives should be mandatory to help sustain them, and the country, for the long haul.

I sure hope you don't mean something enforceable by the gov't.

Can you expound upon this?  Why is making someone belong to anything mandatory a good idea?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 22 2012,2:45 pm
^yes "Mr. Thinker" why is that?
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 22 2012,3:26 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 22 2012,4:56 am)
QUOTE
OK Expatriate, let's try this, I will vote to keep Minnesota a closed shop if,on the ballot, there is a provision to end employer withholding of union dues. The union member would be responsible for paying his or her own dues.

My views may be from a liberal stand point, but I value capitalism with a strong Government to protect the working poor, the views you’re being sold about freedom/independence are merely a catch phases for the enslavement of the worker by the representatives (Republicans) of the Corporate power structure..

Right to Work is a short sighted policy, it attacks the worker’s wages and benefits for short term profits of the Company, what this policy fails to recognize it’s the union wage that stimulates commerce, e.g., the worker is the customer that creates the profit for the Company.

Right to work essentially short circuits capitalism by devaluing labor at the expense of the working man for the short-term gain of the Robber Barron, not only does it endanger commerce but Capitalism as a whole, the basic foundation of our Country!!!
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 22 2012,3:31 pm
Hymie-
QUOTE
Having people belong to collectives should be mandatory to help sustain them, and the country, for the long haul.


Not just a NO, but a FUTUERE no.
Way to stifle, independence and the RIGHT to choose pal.  This type of thinking is not only illogical, but dangerous.

futuere unions.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 22 2012,4:53 pm
If you don't like the unions CHOOSE not to apply for work at a union shop. I cannot understand how that concept is so hard for you anti blue collar folks to understand.
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 22 2012,8:55 pm
I would not consider myself anti blue collar.  I've worked at union shops myself (Progress Casting and Streater to name two)  I don't think joining any "club" should be a requirement for employment. At the same time, I don't feel the 'club' should represent if you do not join.  Plain and simple.

QUOTE
If you don't like the unions CHOOSE not to apply for work at a union shop.

In some towns that is quite easy when you have a plethora of employment choices, in small town America however it is not quite that simple, many times there is only one or two large employers
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 23 2012,7:20 am

(Grinning_Dragon @ Feb. 22 2012,3:31 pm)
QUOTE
Hymie-
QUOTE
Having people belong to collectives should be mandatory to help sustain them, and the country, for the long haul.


Not just a NO, but a FUTUERE no.
Way to stifle, independence and the RIGHT to choose pal.  This type of thinking is not only illogical, but dangerous.

futuere unions.

Shouldn't you be at Mardi Gras or something?

Last time I checked they don't let ragin' Cajuns from Louisiana vote in Minnesota elections.

I'll tell you what though: If we want a recipe for a good jambalaya, we'll ask you for your input.

Kapiche?

"Pal"  :rofl:
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 23 2012,7:32 am

(Moparman @ Feb. 22 2012,4:53 pm)
QUOTE
If you don't like the unions CHOOSE not to apply for work at a union shop. I cannot understand how that concept is so hard for you anti blue collar folks to understand.

I have to agree with your remarks about folks displaying disdain for their fellow countrymen on this issue. I'm drawing the same conclusion from what I'm reading here.

But let's face it. That sort of thing seems to have permeated the entire United States and is prevalent everywhere these days.

No cohesiveness on anything.

What sort of things are there to brag about as a nation if everyone is trying to undo one another.

Just for a few more trinkets and status symbols for themselves.

If Maddog were here, he could show us some bible quotes about I'm sure.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 23 2012,7:45 am

(Glad I Left @ Feb. 22 2012,2:30 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Having people belong to collectives should be mandatory to help sustain them, and the country, for the long haul.

I sure hope you don't mean something enforceable by the gov't.

Can you expound upon this?  Why is making someone belong to anything mandatory a good idea?

First of all. . .

Nobody here is entirely independent of everybody else. Until you go up to Alaska and build a cabin in a remote area by yourself, and live entirely off the land. . . You can shut your big fat yapper about being "independent".

People use collectives all the time. You see the use of mandatory collectives, or just collectives, in things like car insurance, banks, stocks and so on.

But today there seems to be more negative ways that people use collectives.

Look at the way banks make sure that they maximize their ability to punish people by way of fees and other penalties. Or credit card companies that take advantage of the collective for nefarious purposes.

It would be nice to see people at least show a little less disdain and hatred and anger for humanity when they are given a choice.

That's all I'm saying.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 23 2012,8:22 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 19 2012,3:33 pm)
QUOTE
By the way, Expatriate, Moparman,USMC, Roz and GrassmanI've enjoyed the debate immensely. :notworthy:

Me too. I respect your views on unions, and I know many people who feel the same way. I just fear that if unions disappear, that working conditions and wages will slip back to how things used to be.
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 23 2012,10:00 am
QUOTE
Nobody here is entirely independent of everybody else. Until you go up to Alaska and build a cabin in a remote area by yourself, and live entirely off the land. . . You can shut your big fat yapper about being "independent".

Why so harsh.... I just asked a simple question?  And you go all big fat yapper on me?  And if you read my post, I never said one thing about being independent.

I have stated on here before, I am not against unions and in most cases think they serve good, the problem I have is with larger unions (and any company/charity for that matter).  The larger anything gets, the more waste and corrupt they typically become.  Which is why I don't donate to large charities, only smaller more local ones

And for the record I have a normal size yapper, I am not a gluttonous slob like Rush.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 23 2012,2:19 pm
QUOTE
Editorial: 'Right to work' is wrong for state
It puts Minnesota's high-wage, high-skills economy at risk.

Minnesota governors can't veto proposed constitutional amendments.

But governors have bully pulpits. DFL Gov. Mark Dayton used his during last week's State of the State address to take a swipe at a bad idea that some GOP legislators want to add to the Constitution -- a ban on labor contracts that require all workers employed under the terms of the contract to pay a share of union costs.

Dayton noted that Minnesota enjoys an unemployment rate lower than four of the five states that top the conservative-backed Tax Foundation's business climate rankings. Four of those five states also ban union payment requirements.

"We must be doing something right" without that ban, Dayton said. "In fact, we're doing a lot right."

Moments later, he added a plea: "Let's not forget what has lifted us from below average to above average to outstanding. Let's not destroy good wages and benefits ... in search of another strategy of unproven value -- or one of proven less value."

That well describes the implications of a proposal that acquired the misleading label "right to work" (RTW) 65 years ago, when the federal Taft-Hartley Act gave states authority to outlaw workplaces that make union membership a compulsory condition of employment. RTW laws soon followed in union-averse regions.

Contrary to what its label implies, it would give no one the right to a job. Rather, it would allow workers in union shops the option of a "free lunch" -- the chance to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it.

For many of the workers who might exercise that option, the free lunch wouldn't last -- because the union wouldn't last. Right-to-work laws weaken and kill unions.

Only 7 percent of workers in 22 RTW states are represented by unions, compared with 15.8 percent in Minnesota and an average of 15 percent in non-RTW states. (A 23rd state, Indiana, joined the RTW list earlier this month.)

This is not a question of enabling union opponents to exercise their consciences, or preventing workers from dropping a union they no longer favor. Federal law already protects workers who don't want to join a union from dismissal.

Workers in union shops who don't care to join are required by state law to pay an 85 percent "fair share" in lieu of union dues. Federal law provides that during a predefined period prior to a labor contract's expiration, workers can opt out of their union or change their bargaining agent.

RTW is sold as a spur to business growth, including hiring. But that flies in the face of the fact that Minnesota's unemployment rate is already lower than all but four RTW states.

Those four are all Minnesota's neighbors -- North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa -- and Iowa's jobless rate is almost identical to Minnesota's at 5.6 percent. That suggests that conditions other than RTW are at play in this region's employment levels.

A study sponsored by the conservative Center of the American Experiment contends that RTW would raise wages gradually over time -- $2,360 to $3,072 more per capita in 2008, if RTW had been enacted in Minnesota in 1977.

Yet only three RTW states had higher median household incomes than Minnesota had in 2010, according the U.S. Census bureau. And 12 states whose median incomes are higher do not have RTW laws.

Given the data, it's hard not to think that Republicans like RTW for its potential to damage a powerful Democratic Party ally.

It's also hard not to think that the sudden plethora of RTW bills (18 state legislatures considered RTW in 2011) is orchestrated by corporations via the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-bankrolled organization that feeds model legislation to conservative lawmakers around the country.

RTW represents a step away from Minnesota's economic roots and toward America's South and West. Unlike those historically low-wage regions, Minnesota has long aimed to be a high-wage, high-skill state in which the fruits of enterprise are widely and fairly shared. That sharing extends to the public schools and social services that build the future human capital a high-skill economy needs.

Robust labor unions have helped Minnesota pursue that strategy, with notable success. Weaker unions are likely to lead to lower wages and benefits, which will translate into reduced tax revenue and depleted ability for Minnesota to compete for knowledge-economy jobs.

Following RTW states would put Minnesota on a new and risky path. That's a risk legislators should not invite voters to take.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 23 2012,2:19 pm

(hymiebravo @ Feb. 23 2012,7:20 am)
QUOTE
Shouldn't you be at Mardi Gras or something?

Last time I checked they don't let ragin' Cajuns from Louisiana vote in Minnesota elections.

I'll tell you what though: If we want a recipe for a good jambalaya, we'll ask you for your input.

Kapiche?

"Pal"  :rofl:

Mardi Gras is over.  Fat Tuesday  was two days ago.

Last time I checked, Minnesota didn't require a photo ID to vote so how do you know GD isn't voting up here?

And let me guess, if you want a recipe for jambalaya, you can ask for it and then post twice after that to let us know all about it.  :notworthy:
Posted by fredbear on Feb. 23 2012,2:45 pm
Twice is getting to be the minimum. The idiot seems to think he gains some sort of award for the most crap postings per day.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 24 2012,7:30 am

(MADDOG @ Feb. 23 2012,2:19 pm)
QUOTE

(hymiebravo @ Feb. 23 2012,7:20 am)
QUOTE
Shouldn't you be at Mardi Gras or something?

Last time I checked they don't let ragin' Cajuns from Louisiana vote in Minnesota elections.

I'll tell you what though: If we want a recipe for a good jambalaya, we'll ask you for your input.

Kapiche?

"Pal"  :rofl:

Mardi Gras is over.  Fat Tuesday  was two days ago.

Last time I checked, Minnesota didn't require a photo ID to vote so how do you know GD isn't voting up here?

And let me guess, if you want a recipe for jambalaya, you can ask for it and then post twice after that to let us know all about it.  :notworthy:

Maybe if you Reaganites hadn't trashed the country so bad: You wouldn't have to worry about so many undocumented people being in the state in the first place!

Plus you republicans don't want anyone else trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. You guys want that territory all to yourselves.

Just like former republican President Richard Nixon said:

You guys aren't crooks. . .

Right?

BTW - You should probably go over to your own thread and answer insults that are aimed directly at yourself. Instead of answering for other people here.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 24 2012,7:33 am

(fredbear @ Feb. 23 2012,2:45 pm)
QUOTE
Twice is getting to be the minimum. The idiot seems to think he gains some sort of award for the most crap postings per day.

Frankie Troll heck, getting his troll on.  :rofl:
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 24 2012,8:11 am

(Glad I Left @ Feb. 23 2012,10:00 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Nobody here is entirely independent of everybody else. Until you go up to Alaska and build a cabin in a remote area by yourself, and live entirely off the land. . . You can shut your big fat yapper about being "independent".

Why so harsh... I just asked a simple question?  And you go all big fat yapper on me?  And if you read my post, I never said one thing about being independent.

I have stated on here before, I am not against unions and in most cases think they serve good, the problem I have is with larger unions (and any company/charity for that matter).  The larger anything gets, the more waste and corrupt they typically become.  Which is why I don't donate to large charities, only smaller more local ones

And for the record I have a normal size yapper, I am not a gluttonous slob like Rush.

I apologize if you took the yapper business as something directed at you.

The yapper comment was aimed at the collective readership. It wasn't meant to be a direct harsh assault on you personally.

Good post, and funny Rush comments, in spite of all that anyway though.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 24 2012,10:12 am
^ and again, Hymen is misunderstood.
Posted by fredbear on Feb. 24 2012,11:35 am
it's funny how every post meant to be an explanation for his rantings just makes him look like more of an idiot.

"I took your post and made a quote from it in my reply but it wasn't directed at you."

Oh, and all you Hymie supporters don't hesitate to jump in to support your "pal".  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 24 2012,1:05 pm
QUOTE
OPINION | Fighting the freeload
By Katie Sanders, Minnesota 2020
February 23, 2012
Work hard. Benefit from hard work, time and investment, then give it all away to someone who doesn't invest, work hard or put in the time. Welcome to the realities of the proposed “right to work” constitutional amendment authored by two Minnesota Republicans Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa in the House of Representatives, and Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville. The amendment would give people who work in union settings the ability to not pay union dues while reaping the benefits of a collectively bargained contract that improves their wages, working conditions and benefits.

Of course, it isn’t a long line to be drawn between undermining unions and defunding the Democrats agenda, because labor has traditionally helped to fund that party. Frankly, there are fewer places in the country than in Minnesota where many Republicans have been nursing minority resentment for 40 years. Already demonstrated by the unilateral reduction of only the Democrats budget for the session, while the Republican budget remained unmolested and the rejection of Ellen Anderson as an appointee of the Democratic Gov. Dayton, the Republican leadership has not attempted to hide its agenda for the session.

There are 23 other states* in the U.S. that are presently “right to work” states. Read through the list. Recognize any that consistently score higher than Minnesota? There aren’t any.

For the sake of argument, let us take the examples of our immediate neighbors, Iowa, North and South Dakota. All of them are “right to work” states. Relying on the statistics from the last census, here is a sample of what you find:



Source: < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html > for years 2006-2010

According to the BLS.gov, workers in “right-to-work” states average $5,333 a year less in income than those states without the legislation. Where do you suppose that money goes? If you guess the profit line of that company, you are correct. “Right to work,” or, what many are calling “the right to work for less,” serves as another example of the one percent profiting from the work of the 99%. So while we can debate the bias, or lack of in the census itself, you really can’t argue the facts: Minnesota is (traditionally) a state that invests in its own communities.

An Economic Policy Institute report released last month focused on Indiana’s (then) consideration of RTW yielded the following observation:

The only honest way to measure the effect of RTW is to separate out its impact from everything else. How much of Texas’ growth is due to warm weather, the oil industry, NASA, or migration from Mexico? Conducting measurements while holding everything else equal is called “regression analysis” in statistics, and it’s required for any article published in an academic journal. It is also what courts use to distinguish evidence admissible in lawsuits from what is termed “junk science.” The numbers provided by ALEC, the National Right to Work Committee, and other advocacy groups fail this most basic test; they hold nothing equal and simply assume that RTW explains growth.**

Based on the experiences of both Oklahoma and now Indiana, Minnesota simply doesn’t need the proposed RTW rhetoric. Unless, of course, the real goal is to keep company in undesired circles.



< http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/page...on.html >
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,12:44 pm
From Expatriate's post
QUOTE
According to the BLS.gov, workers in “right-to-work” states average $5,333 a year less in income than those states without the legislation. Where do you suppose that money goes? If you guess the profit line of that company, you are correct.


Figures lie, and liars figure.  

Note that almost all states that require Union membership are in states that are usually liberal--usually large urban areas.  Right to work states tend to be rural areas--the entire center and southern states.

The cost of living in those densely populated "blue" states is high--New York is 132% of the national average, and California is 131%.  Most of the heartland of the country is in the 90th percentile of the national average.  In other words, the cost of living in the urban areas (which tend to be "union shop" states) is about 1/3 higher than in the rest of the country.

That increased cost of living MORE than eats up that $5,333 in higher wages, does it not? :p

Put yet another way--would you rather be making the national average wage in New York, or in Oklahoma?  Even if you added the $5,333 to the average wage, would you be better off in "right to work" Oklahoma or in New York? :dunno:
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,12:51 pm
To see how well the "Right to Work" state maps correlate with the high cost of living mentioned in the post above, compare this map with the cost of living.  Note the predominance of union shops with the high cost of living states on the east and west coasts.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,12:59 pm
For a final correlation, compare this map of states gaining and losing population (and Congressional seats) with the right to work map and the high cost of living map.

Once again, the states that are heavily unionized and have high costs of living are LOSING population.  That shouldn't be hard to figure out!

Note that almost all of the states that are GAINING an additional representative are "red" states--and those losing population (and a representative) are "blue" states.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 25 2012,1:01 pm
How is this cost of living being tabulated, on what references? Is it the price of food, gas, utilities, insurance, or what? If it is just housing, that does not equate the whole picture. Housing is generally a lot higher in highly populated areas. What does this have to do with the right to work law anyway? :dunno:  More smoke and mirrors?
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,1:16 pm
"smoke and mirrors"?  I go to the time and trouble to research this, and you say it isn't so--yet you are too lazy to back up your "opinion"?

The last chart came from the liberal Washington Post--based on the 2010 census.  Are you disputing the U.S. Census, and the fact that most of the states that GAINED population were red states, and those LOSING were blue states?  If you have information to the contrary, contact the Census Bureau.  :sarcasm:

The Right to Work map came from redstate.com.  Are you disputing any of the facts that these states are or are not right to work states? :dunno:

The map with comparative costs of living comes from null< My Webpage >  Do you dispute the comparative costs of living in these states?

Why don't you try to combat these figures on the FACTS--not "opinion."  An unsupported opinion has no credibility--if you have other data, lay it out, as I did with Expatriate's claim! :crazy:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 25 2012,1:23 pm
Ok, tell me the story on these graphs, they are pretty simple.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 25 2012,1:24 pm
This one too! What do they say to YOU! :popcorn:
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,1:55 pm
What does corporate profits after tax have to do with right to work? :dunno:

Would you SUPPOSE that the fact that the U.S. blue-collar manufacturing labor force has been in DECLINE has anything to do with the increase in corporate profits?  Do you suppose that corporate profits might be up due to the fact that we are increasingly doing more high-tech industry (which is rarely unionized compared to the old manufacturing model)?

Your second graph only says "nonfarm business sector--labor share".  Share of WHAT?  Profits?  Dollars? Sales? :dunno:

INDEX of what? :dunno:

If it is  is the percentage of labor going into a product, that would continue to decrease due to automation and higher tech.

Same thing if it is the dollars going into a product.

Same thing if it is profit (see first graph)--lower labor costs (whether due to automation or the fact that we no longer make labor-intensive products like steel) is a GOOD thing.

Would you really advocate using labor instead of automation?  That only works for developing countries.  Do you want us to be like Nicaragua? :sarcasm:

Now answer the question--are you really going to dispute the correlation between forced unionization and declining population?

Can you refute the fact that Expatriate claimed that heavily unionized areas (though losing population) made $5,333 more per year than areas that were not unionized--yet those costs were MORE than eaten up because of the higher cost of living in those states.

A case could be made that the higher pay in those states was due more to the fact that EVERYBODY in those states made more money--because they HAD to due to the high cost of living in those states! :p

High cost of living--forced unionization--declining population--apparently, THAT is the model Donks want for the REST of the country!

The rest of us simply want the Federal government to leave us alone. :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 25 2012,4:48 pm
Whatever spin you put on this Jim the fact is this a direct attack on unions and workers, it’s about defunding the Democratic Party under the guise of Right to Work which will be followed by more undermining of the progress the American Labor Movement has made in the past century..

The so called freedom this Amendment offers is a ruse to ring the death null for unions and workers in general, the freedom this Amendment offers already exist under federal law, it provides that during a predefined period prior to a labor contract's expiration, workers can opt out of their union or change their bargaining agent. If you don’t want a Union you don’t have to have a Union! Most workers if not all in Minnesota union shops who don't care to join are required by state law to pay an 85 percent "fair share" in lieu of union dues, I’m sure you’re well aware of this policy as your wife would have had this option when she worked as a teacher.
What this Amendment does it eliminates fair share, union dues will no longer be electronically deducted, much like Mike Parry’s Bill attacking State worker’s dues collection will fall on the union essentially an impossibility. the legislation is specifically designed to kill the union movement.

From the point of a small businessman such as you Father and his lumberyard. is it better to supply the materials to build one house for a rich man or is it better to supply materials for 100’s of homes for working class folks??
The anti-union mindset being push by your party is bad for commerce, stop for a moment and think about this from a neutral businessman’s prospective.

Just a question I’m interested in the Republican candidate you’re backing, I’m a correct in assuming it’s Newt ?
Posted by grassman on Feb. 25 2012,4:49 pm
Ok, I give up. :frusty: I have my own business, I work for myself. I am done looking out for the next guy. None of this is really my fight. I just wish every time I see the cost of my  equipment, supplies and everything else that takes money out of my pocket rise, it went to better a struggling family than some fat basterd sitting in a boardroom. What was I thinking. Well you will have to excuse me now, I'm gonna fire up one of my tractors and run over some old lady collecting SS. She's probably just collecting off her dead husband anyway. There now do I have it right? :laugh:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZDBXm11WXY >
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 25 2012,5:39 pm
Expatriate--
QUOTE
Whatever spin you put on this Jim the fact is this a direct attack on unions and workers, it’s about defunding the Democratic Party under the guise of Right to Work which will be followed by more undermining of the progress the American Labor Movement has made in the past century..


Defunding the Democrat Party--by not allowing its biggest contributors to contribute money from members that want to vote the other way? :p

"Progress the American Labor Movement has made?" Union membership has been in decline for 60 years!  Why do you suppose that is?

QUOTE
The so called freedom this Amendment offers is a ruse to ring the death null for unions and workers in general, the freedom this Amendment offers already exist under federal law, it provides that during a predefined period prior to a labor contract's expiration, workers can opt out of their union or change their bargaining agent
 If workers are so "free"--why have a law that FORCES workers to join a union? :p

QUOTE
If you don’t want a Union you don’t have to have a Union! Most workers if not all in Minnesota union shops who don't care to join are required by state law to pay an 85 percent "fair share" in lieu of union dues, I’m sure you’re well aware of this policy as your wife would have had this option when she worked as a teacher.
 Yes, my wife opted out.  Do you really believe that only 15% of union money goes to political candidates?  Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

QUOTE
What this Amendment does it eliminates fair share, union dues will no longer be electronically deducted, much like Mike Parry’s Bill attacking State worker’s dues collection will fall on the union essentially an impossibility. the legislation is specifically designed to kill the union movement.

 If the union is so good, what do the unions have to fear?  The REALITY is that wherever given a choice, workers OPT OUT of the union altogether.  Why would anyone think they have to FORCE people to join a union?

QUOTE
From the point of a small businessman such as you Father and his lumberyard. is it better to supply the materials to build one house for a rich man or is it better to supply materials for 100’s of homes for working class folks??
 Unions consistently tried to organize the lumber yard--and the contractors that worked out of there.  The workers consistently rejected it.

Building homes for hundreds of working class folks?  The lumber yard built more houses in Freeborn County than all of the rest of the lumber yards combined--and they were non-union.  I guess that makes my point.

Botsford (later UBC) was the only union lumber yard around.  They were a minor player, and soon went out of business.

QUOTE
The anti-union mindset being push by your party is bad for commerce, stop for a moment and think about this from a neutral businessman’s prospective.

 Can you think of ANY business that decides "You know, I think having a union run my business would be GOOD!  :rofl:

Who would I back?  I would be like most conservatives--The most CONSERVATIVE, ELECTABLE candidate I could find.

The first electable candidate that promised LESS (not more) government spending and intrusion would have my vote.  I would vote for any of the 3 candidates--I'd even vote for Ron Paul if he wasn't such a flake on foreign policy.

Party?  I'd vote for a Tim Penny Democrat in a minute (as I did way back then)!  He and John Kasich were the best deficit hawks in Congress.
Posted by Moparman on Feb. 25 2012,9:47 pm
What do the unions fear? They fear anti-blue collar corporations and the politicians they have in their pocket.
Why would any sane employee opt out of their union altogether? Why would they give up their wage, benefits, and protections? Or do they just want opt out of paying dues and keep all the good stuff?
There are really only two ways that workers consistently reject the union the employer either pays to keep them out or they intimidate and threaten the employees jobs. At least that's what all people that have rebuffed the union have told me.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 26 2012,11:05 am

(jimhanson @ Feb. 25 2012,12:59 pm)
QUOTE
For a final correlation, compare this map of states gaining and losing population (and Congressional seats) with the right to work map and the high cost of living map.

Once again, the states that are heavily unionized and have high costs of living are LOSING population.  That shouldn't be hard to figure out!

Note that almost all of the states that are GAINING an additional representative are "red" states--and those losing population (and a representative) are "blue" states.

Looking at that map one the first things that comes to mind is: Warm weather---retirement states.

I wouldn't really consider Minnesota a low cost of living state. It may seem like it is---compared to someplace like California.

But it's a far cry from some place like Texas isn't it?

Missouri has a relatively mild climate and is listed as having a very low cost of living. Why aren't they prospering more?

Wisconsin has harbored union, turned non-union entities, fleeing from other states. Ask the ex cheese factory folks in Faribault. Wisconsin didn't need a "Right to Work law" for that did they?

For all the pro right to work stuff on the net. There seems to be an equal amount of anti stuff.

One example was a Minnesota economist listed as saying that this legislation is bad. That was in one of Expatriate's posts. But if you go Wiki they list a Minnesota economist saying that it is good.

But they do state that there are many, or could be, other factors that play a role as well.

So maybe Minnesota will have to cut state income tax, tax food and clothing, put up toll booths and change the temperature and warm things up a bit to fully reap the benefits of RTW.

Judging by this winter of warmth they may have already taken care of the weather part.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 26 2012,12:10 pm
Hymie--
QUOTE
I wouldn't really consider Minnesota a low cost of living state. It may seem like it is---compared to someplace like California.

But it's a far cry from some place like Texas isn't it?
 From the figures on the map--Minnesota cost of living is HIGHER than average at 103.2% of the national average.  California is at 131.1, and Texas is 90.7  Low COL, low tax Texas is booming, and California and the Northeast are dying.  Just saying that there seems to be a direct correlation between low cost of living, low taxes, and right to work states all INCREASING population, while the high-tax, high COL, union shop states are losing population.

QUOTE
Looking at that map one the first things that comes to mind is: Warm weather---retirement states.
 Yes, the South has warm weather--but I don't think many people think of retiring in North Dakota, South DAkota, Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee or Oklahoma--all right to work states.  States outside the south that are increasing population are also low COL and right to work states, so I don't think that is a direct correlation.

By definition, RETIREMENT means "not working"--I can't think of why a non-working retiree would choose to move to a right to work state.  Instead, it is the business owners that choose to locate to those states--and the jobs follow.
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 27 2012,7:47 am
QUOTE
Yes, the South has warm weather--but I don't think many people think of retiring in North Dakota, South DAkota, Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee or Oklahoma--all right to work states.  States outside the south that are increasing population are also low COL and right to work states, so I don't think that is a direct correlation.

By definition, RETIREMENT means "not working"--I can't think of why a non-working retiree would choose to move to a right to work state.  Instead, it is the business owners that choose to locate to those states--and the jobs follow.


Topping the list of states that gained: You had Texas and Florida. They are listed as being +2 or more. Then you have states like Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Utah and Nevada listed as. . . +1.

There is a lot of popular retirement geography there in that list. Warm weather lots of sunshine, dry. And in some cases ocean or gulf access.

Places like The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Indiana, RTW states, are listed as no change.

Then we have the only listed growth state that is in the northern section of the country: Washington at +1.

They are not a RTW state. Maybe they should change that, so they can proper.  :sarcasm:

Is enacting this legislation going to help Albert Lea?

How many of these incubated economic development entities are union or being held back by unions?

Is that new Holiday Inn express going to be a "union" hotel?

Are Granitecrete distributors union entities?

Is Daisy Mae soap and candles a union entity?

Is Burger King?

Are the tire stores?

Are the car lots union?

How about the Mayo Clinic?

Small businesses are rarely unionized in the first place.

This legislation is obviously about something else. IMO
Posted by hymiebravo on Feb. 27 2012,7:50 am
People working for low paying companies, with families, are also more likely to be subsidized by the government as well.

Are they not?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 27 2012,8:10 am
^ Sure they're subsidized, lots of Democrat votes there.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 27 2012,5:16 pm
Hymie--
QUOTE
Is enacting this legislation going to help Albert Lea?

 Well, let's see.  Iowa is a right to work state.  Lots of businesses move to Iowa--but Iowa businesses moving to Albert Lea?  Not so much.

South Dakota is a right to work state.  They advertise it on the Twin City stations.  They've been pretty successful in getting business to leave Minnesota and relocate to South Dakota.  I don't see any South Dakota businesses relocating to Minnesota.

North Dakota is a right to work state.  They have the lowest unemployment in the nation.

This doesn't even mention the number of businesses that have left Minnesota and the "rust belt" states for Tennessee, the Carolinas, and Georgia.  

Those states are GROWING, and Minnesota is falling behind.

Those states are also LOW TAX--the two you mentioned, Florida and Texas, have NO personal income tax, and low corporate taxes.

If you were a business owner, which model would YOU choose?

Those BUSINESSES aren't going to those states for the warm weather--business goes where it is appreciated and invited--and the jobs go with them.

Let's stand the argument on its ear--Minnesota is a union shop state, and a high tax state.  How has that model been working out as far as attracting new business?
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 27 2012,6:36 pm
Despite ambitious claims by proponents, the evidence is overwhelming that:

• Right-to-work laws have not succeeded in boosting employment growth in the states that have adopted them.

• The case of Oklahoma – closest in time to the conditions facing those states now considering such legislation – is particularly discouraging regarding the law’s ability to spur job growth. Since the law passed in 2001, manufacturing employment and relocations into the state reversed their climb and began to fall, precisely the opposite of what right-to-work advocates promised.

• For those states looking beyond traditional or low wage manufacturing jobs – whether to higher-tech manufacturing, to “knowledge” sector jobs, or to service industries dependent on consumer spending in the local economy – there is reason to believe that right-to-work laws may actually harm a state’s economic prospects.

< http://www.epi.org/publication/bp300/ >
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 28 2012,11:23 am
QUOTE
GOP weighs cost of union battle
Article by: By JIM RAGSDALE

With fresh memories of rancor in Wisconsin and other states, Republicans move slowly on right to work.

The bitter struggle over union power sweeping through the Midwest is poised to descend on St. Paul, if Republican legislators decide to take the plunge.

Their quandary is whether to push a proposed right-to-work constitutional amendment, a flashpoint for political warfare since the 1940s. Advocates in the GOP-controlled Legislature want it on the ballot.

Passage by voters would make Minnesota the 24th state in the nation to allow employees who opt out of unions to avoid paying dues or fees. But a full debate could lead to the kinds of protests and energized union voters that have made Wisconsin ground zero for labor activism.

"The question is, is the juice worth the squeeze?" said Charlie Weaver, head of the Minnesota Business Partnership, which represents the state's largest corporations. Weaver's members support right to work but worry that the blowback could jeopardize Republicans' legislative majorities in November.

By putting pressure on union coffers, the law makes it harder to organize or maintain unions. Union membership is lower -- sometimes off the charts -- in traditional right-to-work states, which are centered in the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions. In the Midwest, Iowa, Indiana, North Dakota and South Dakota are right-to-work states, while Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio are not.

Other labor-management issues have come to the fore in the Midwest following Republican statehouse gains in the Tea Party-influenced elections of 2010. But the right-to-work amendment would be a much bigger fight. Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, and Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, introduced the proposal with great fanfare weeks after Indiana approved it, seeking to put the issue before voters as a proposed constitutional amendment, which skirts the veto pen of DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. It remains on hold.

No fever for amendment

House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, said "there's not a fever" among his caucus for the right-to-work proposal; Republican committee chairs Tony Cornish of Good Thunder and Morrie Lanning of Moorhead have spoken against the idea. Zellers, along with Senate Majority Leader David Senjem, R-Rochester, said their members are weighing the right-to-work measure along with other proposed amendments that could join the marriage definition amendment already placed on the ballot.

The experience of other states in the past two years may be part of the calculation.

• In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker pushed through strict limits on public-employee collective bargaining in 2011, triggering massive Capitol demonstrations, a Democratic walkout and recall elections that could cost him his job this summer. But, bargaining limits remain in effect, and Walker has become a hero to fiscal conservatives.

• Ohio Republicans -- Gov. John Kasich and legislators -- enacted a similar bargaining restriction, only to see it revoked last year in an overwhelming referendum vote that fired up unions and Democratic supporters.

• Indiana this year passed, and outgoing Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed, a right-to-work law that prompted walkouts by Democrats. Both sides are girding for battle in November.

Minnesota's labor supporters have been skirmishing with Republicans over Dayton's executive order that set a union election for some child-care providers. The right-to-work debate focuses on the very presence of unions -- whether they are a needed counterbalance to corporate power or an obstacle to efficiency, change and global competitiveness.

Supporters like Sen. Thompson say right to work is a matter of "employee freedom" that lets expanding businesses know the state is business-friendly.

"In my opinion, there's nothing we can do that is more beneficial for people's freedom and liberty, and creating a better business climate in this state,'' he said.

Opponents say the proposal would starve existing unions and make it hard to organize. They point to studies that show a better overall quality of life -- in everything from wages and benefits to educational attainment and health -- in "free-bargaining" states like Minnesota.

Jennifer Michelson of Eagan, a veteran nurse and union member at United Hospital, said her counterparts in right-to-work Iowa have a hard time raising enough to keep the union going. She said union dues, like taxes, may not be voluntary but "go for the common good," and the union presence raises the wages of nonunion workers in the same field.

George Raymond, of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said his state, with 9 percent unemployment, loses out to expanding companies that "just don't want to hassle with unions. The perception is out there if you're a union shop, you've got more problems than if you're nonnion."

Jeff Harris, spokesman for the Indiana AFL-CIO, said the state adopted right to work once before, in 1957 and repealed it in 1965. "What happened from '57 to '65 is citizens rose up, changed their elected representatives, changed governors and repealed right to work. It's certainly the thing we are focusing on now," Harris said.

There is one exception to the anti-union movement among new Republican majorities in this region. In Michigan, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has resisted right to work, saying it is "divisive" and "creates an environment where people are not working together."

Eliot Seide, executive director of Minnesota AFSCME Council 5, said organized labor is gearing up to fight back, should lawmakers opt to put right to work on the November ballot. Their action, he said, could turn the State Capitol into another center of Midwestern union activism.

"They would bring Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana here to Minnesota," Seide said.

< http://www.startribune.com/politic...ontinue >
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 28 2012,12:07 pm
^Damn Expatriate,the Star Tribune?? You're really getting desperate.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 28 2012,10:49 pm
hehehehe...

Grassman waived the white flag...who's next?   :rofl:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 29 2012,4:28 am
Here's to you CC!
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 01 2012,10:44 am
So here we have it True Republican Colors of today, cheap-labor conservatives bellowing for "minimalist government" the true party of “NO” no unions, no social security, no disability, no Medicare, no welfare safety net, , no minimum wage, no OSHA, no environmental protection.
What’s governments role in the Republican’s mind, imposing there ideological values to protect the interests of the wealthy.

"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other."
`Abraham Lincoln
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,11:43 am
^ So here we have liberal democrat promoting the idea socialism,Help me I'm lacking in any responsibilities of my own so I should have some of my neighbors, help me Mr Government, take from him and GIVE to ME! Just because my neighbor is responsible and forward thinking doesn't mean I should go without.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 01 2012,11:56 am
^labor has worked hard for the few rights we have today, a fair days work for a fair days pay...
You can kiss mine with that tired old rightwing sometime for nothing line...

Turn that Rush Bimbo off and start using what’s between your ears, you’re working for a living kid, you’re not one of them quit voting Republican...
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 01 2012,12:01 pm
I am all for helping the helpless, just not the lazy
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 01 2012,12:12 pm

(Glad I Left @ Mar. 01 2012,12:01 pm)
QUOTE
I am all for helping the helpless, just not the lazy

:clap:

As an example of what does not work, look at how Minnesota doles out aid. Our welfare system is more of a lazy scumbag magnet than anything else.

Why can't we require a minimum period of state residency before doling out assistance?

On the national level, why can't we run food stamps the way WIC programs are run, where staple food items are okay, but junk food and the like are off-limits?

We make it far too easy on these welfare-for-life butterhogs.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 01 2012,12:42 pm
It’s difficult to discern the sick and lame from the lazy but everyone should work for their keep with the exception of those who are terminal..As for welfare Mothers they should be required to submit to a form of birth control they can’t forget to take!
Both disability & welfare recipients should be paid in script that’s nonnegotiable in liquor establishments or for tobacco..they should all be 86’d from bars...reinstate the poor farm system, make work more desirable than leaching...
At the same time stay to hell away from the workingman and his union rights, I'm really tired of being the guy in the middle taking it from both sides!!!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,1:30 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 01 2012,11:56 am)
QUOTE
^labor has worked hard for the few rights we have today, a fair days work for a fair days pay...
You can kiss mine with that tired old rightwing sometime for nothing line...

Turn that Rush Bimbo off and start using what’s between your ears, you’re working for a living kid, you’re not one of them quit voting Republican...

Damn Expatriate, you sound a little peeved. Here's how it is, I don't listen to Rush, far too progressive for my tastes.

What I write is how I live and have been doing that way for 25 plus years. I fend for myself, if I run into a problem I deal with it. I do not go to someone else with my problems

And if you are getting tired of getting it from both sides(and I really hate to say this to you considering all we've through on this thead) buck up, be a man and not a little bitch.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 01 2012,2:13 pm
^ Why do you feel so jealous and threatened by another person working for a decent living?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,3:08 pm
^I don't, I most likley make a better living. I don't want a union coming in and screwing it all up.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 01 2012,3:20 pm
Ya, I really hate the way the union screwed up my previous low wage, no benefit job.  :rofl:
Posted by This is my real name on Mar. 01 2012,3:40 pm

(Moparman @ Mar. 01 2012,3:20 pm)
QUOTE
Ya, I really hate the way the union screwed up my previous low wage, no benefit job.  :rofl:

Didn't the union screw up Bridon Cordage? I seem to recall reading something about that on this forum - that after they were voted in, most of the longtime employees left because of what had been lost - and by then only those who favored the union were left.

I know I wouldn't want a union coming in to where I work, and neither would the vast majority of my coworkers. Some employers know how to treat their talent and don't need a union "helping" them to do it.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 01 2012,6:20 pm
And some employers don't know how to treat their talent. I would not work at my company and neither would a majority my co workers if there was no union. Your company just simply pays to keep the union out. So having union shops close by benefits everyone.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 01 2012,11:01 pm
This isn’t about you having a union, this is about the Republican’s using legislation to screw over those of us working for a living, give a dog a bone and try to take it away you’re likely to get bit!
What we have here is a Republican majority tyrannizing the union worker, a minority they been trying to destroy for years, when they’ve defeated US you're next, your wages and benefits will be their next target.

labor has to unite union and nonunion or they’ll step on US all...
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,11:15 pm
^Nd your options for a job diminish more every year. Unions are on their way out just look at the teamsters. They used to be a big deal in the transportation sector now their main holdouts are UPS and Yellow Freight. The Teamsters wounldn'd dare strike either of these companies because of what happened last time. They just got rolled over by other companies and lost a lot of business. Yellow almost had to pull the plug a couple of years ago, they have become slow and sluggish in a world that demands speed and agility. The Teamsters are an anchor tied around their neck and will eventually drown them.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,11:17 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 01 2012,11:01 pm)
QUOTE
This isn’t about you having a union, this is about the Republican’s using legislation to screw over those of us working for a living, give a dog a bone and try to take it away you’re likely to get bit!
What we have here is a Republican majority tyrannizing the union worker, a minority they been trying to destroy for years, when they’ve defeated US you're next, your wages and benefits will be their next target.

labor has to unite union and nonunion or they’ll step on US all...

The market will determine all.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2012,11:19 pm
Funny thought,I just had a flashback of Jim Guyette leading the sheep to slaughter.
Posted by grassman on Mar. 02 2012,6:22 am
For being a truck driver, you sure do spend a lot of time on this website. Posting while driving is illegal you know.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 02 2012,8:15 am
^That’ll be your market once they have US all on a Chinese pay-scale.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 02 2012,9:05 am

(grassman @ Mar. 02 2012,6:22 am)
QUOTE
For being a truck driver, you sure do spend a lot of time on this website. Posting while driving is illegal you know.

Why yes it is illegal, a $2750 fine. It's been a little slow as on late, the little chinks are celebrating their New Year. Next week or the week after it starts rockin' and rollin' again.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 02 2012,12:42 pm

(Santorini @ Feb. 16 2012,6:20 pm)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 16 2012,9:22 am)
QUOTE
Santorini, you are so good at holding mirrors up in front of people and judging them in what you consider is their failures. So I'm wondering how you think Jesus and or God would feel about you. What do you think their stand would be on the environment? Think they would be all gung-ho for profits at the expense of the environment and people's health?
I've seen many times in this forum where you have been busted for outright lying OR, possibly in your defense, just believing lies you are told and stubbornly sticking to those lies not even wanting to take the chance of finding out what is true or not. How do you think that bodes with The Big Guy?
You defend big bankers and execs for making crazy amounts of money while harming others, and you blame the ones they harm for being lazy and jealous.
Judging others: That's the biggest problem I have with so many christians. I'm not even sure why so many do it. From reading the bible I know that was a big thing with Jesus.
So this mirror you like to hold up to others.-Have you ever turned it around and looked at it yourself?

Okay Rosaling, enough is enough.  You show me where I have been busted for outright lying...
because I do not fall hook line and sinker for the rhetoric you guys have fallen prey to does NOT mean I have lied!  I happen to not believe in the lies you guys repeat from your so-called sources!! And personally, I think you should probably examine your OWN conscience before you start babbling on about someone else!  Al Gore is the fisherman and you are his bait...you repeat this crap he has tried to sell on virtually every spread...ever stop to think how much money he and bottom-feeders like him are making because people like you believe his crap :crazy:
and one more thing Rosalind...I NEVER judge...I just call it like I see it!!!
Get over the big money people...they were here long before you came along and they will still be here long after your demise...you think youre the first bait to come along and attempt to preach to the masses about the haves and have nots :dunce:   You must be young...this has been going on for years!!!!!

hmmm, we should have elected Gore when we had the chance. He has God-like powers. He must have been able to travel back in time to the 70's (when in fact climate change talk started), he's been able to somehow convince almost every single country and scientist (even NASA) into believing his hoax. He's even been able to make sure the planet behaves like it does (trapping green house gases and therefore attributing to climate change).
And, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME: I am NOT against big money people, I am against some of the things, SOME of them do in order to get big money.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 02 2012,1:34 pm

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2012,7:29 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Feb. 12 2012,9:33 pm)
QUOTE
That is why you had better make your life with Jesus. The world has turned to chit! Keep your eyes, ears, and an open mind on what is going on in the mid east. This is the start of something big.

True, that. Saudi Arabia and Israel are far more dangerous enemies to the U.S. than Iran is, but guess who we're going after next?

If the American people truly understood the depths of Israel's involvement in 9/11, they'd wipe them off the map. Michael Scheuer said as much on Judge Napolitano's show on FBC and *poof* show cancelled.

I guess it's a no-no to use the public airwaves to say anything bad about Israel.

Botto, I caught some things on CSPAN, now it sounds like things are being set up for us invading Syria. Guess we can't make up our minds who to attack.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 02 2012,5:45 pm
Rosalind--
QUOTE

hmmm, we should have elected Gore when we had the chance. He has God-like powers. He must have been able to travel back in time to the 70's (when in fact climate change talk started), he's been able to somehow convince almost every single country and scientist (even NASA) into believing his hoax. He's even been able to make sure the planet behaves like it does (trapping green house gases and therefore attributing to climate change).
 Have you been down in the bomb shelter for the last 3 years?

Owlgore has dropped off the radar screen.  I think he has taken the money he bilked out of the believers in "climate change" and retired to one of his large homes.

Ever heard of "Climategate"--the wholesale fudging of the numbers by "climate scientists" to achieve the desired outcome?  Far from objective.

NASA?  They don't have an official prediction.  It was the rogue James Hansen (that's with an E!) :D  that produced the since-discredited "hockey stick graph"--unendorsed by NASA.

Last year, OwlGore's famous "drowning polar bears" was debunked--it turned out that a total of FOUR bears were spotted from the air as drowned--and that since they are strong swimmers (after all, they ARE Ursus Maritimus--the sea bear) they were likely drowned as the result of the strong winds and high waves of several days before.  Owlgore couldn't produce a SINGLE DROWNED BEAR for his crockumentary! :laugh:

Last fall's Rassmussen poll showed that 69% of the population believes the numbers have been falsified by climate change supporters.

Look at Gallup--"climate change" is far down the list of importance of issues with voters--after jobs, economy, and deficit spending.

Owe-Bama couldn't even get his "cap and trade" bill through the DEMOCRAT Senate!  It has died a deserved death--nobody talks about bringing it up any more.

Libbies consistently bring out the old drone about "saving the Earth". null< My Webpage > In this example, NASA's discredited resident clown predicts that Obama has "only 4 years left to save the Earth."  Since that was in 2009, the fearful libbies must be running for the hills next year--UNLESS they also believe that the "end of the world will come in December". :rofl:

Despite libbie "sky-is-falling" rhetoric--the Earth still spins, and mankind flourishes.

"Man-caused Global Warming" (or "global cooling", take your pick) can take its place alongside "efficient government health care", "investment" in solar subsidies, failure to control immigration, "mandated government loans to homeowners that can't afford them", and "shovel-ready projects" as the failures this administration will be known for. :p
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 02 2012,7:16 pm
Really? Old Jim buddy must have infected all of NASA with his kookiness then. NASA now has a whole website dedicated to climate change. < http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ >

Every single person who has been documenting polar bears the last several years has stated that they are disappearing rapidly.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 03 2012,1:18 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 02 2012,7:16 pm)
QUOTE
Really? Old Jim buddy must have infected all of NASA with his kookiness then. NASA now has a whole website dedicated to climate change. < http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ >

Every single person who has been documenting polar bears the last several years has stated that they are disappearing rapidly.

Australian TV Exposes Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

< www.newsbusters.org/node/11879 >
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 03 2012,4:47 pm
Oil, Coal and Natural Gas has been trapped under the ground for billions of years. When burned it releases its stored Carbon Dioxide..

Oil, Coal and Gas was created from billions of years of plants being covered by tons of rock matter..

It took billions of years to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere so that life other than just plants could live..

Hoax? You're an idiot..
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2012,5:54 pm
^Sounds like you release a lot of carbon dioxide yourself.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 03 2012,8:36 pm
Expat, how do you know Lincoln was pro-union?  It's possible he could take the position that unions poorly represent all the employees (labor) of a company and ultimately cause job loss through company failures.  He would then feel unions were treason.


(Expatriate @ Mar. 01 2012,10:44 am)
QUOTE

"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other."
`Abraham Lincoln


Way back in the beginning of this thread Expat posted a bunch of stats implying that right to work states had higher levels of unemployment.  The link below is to a working paper done by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  This is certainly not meant to discredit Expat's stats, but it does look at employment growth over a longer period of time and seem to conclude that greater labor market freedom leads to greater employment growth, specifically for the years of 1990 - 2005.  I think we can all agree that there are many factors that influence a thing like employment growth and the paper acknowledges as much, but I figured I would offer this up for anyone who is having a difficult time getting to sleep and would like to do a little reading.  (sorry no pictures, but there are some tables)

< http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2010/2010-006.pdf >
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 04 2012,12:52 am
Mumbles the clown--
QUOTE

Ever heard of "Climategate"--the wholesale fudging of the numbers by "climate scientists" to achieve the desired outcome?  Far from objective.

That's just a flat out lie, there was no "fudging of numbers".

QUOTE

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy >



That's the difference between liberals and republicans, if the facts don't fit the republican's position they just make up their own facts/lies that will support their position. If the facts don't fit the liberal's position the liberal changes their position to reflect the facts.

Santeria--
How dumb does a person have to be to attempt to debunk NASA with a Newsbuster story?
QUOTE

Australian TV Exposes Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

< www.newsbusters.org/node/11879 >

Not one thing in that article debunks global warming, at best you had someone that wasn't there when the photo was taken claimed the bears weren't far from land and could easily swim back to shore.

So in the minds of a right wing kook global warming is a hoax because a photo used to illustrate the effects of global warming was 2 1/2 years old and the person taking the photo didn't know if they were stranded or not?

It's almost like the loons think that scientists based climate change on that photo of polar bears.
QUOTE

Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?


"The time of year was August, summer.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch"

Read Amanda Byrd's response to Media Watch's questions.


Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.

So were the polar bears stranded?


"They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch"

< http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887890.htm >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2012,8:27 am
@ blahblahblah

Lincoln was talking about the people that work, the value of labor something I seriously doubt you’d understand...
let me quote Lincoln again: “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people”
From your link:
QUOTE
The views expressed here are those of the authors and NOT the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System.

Its seem your link doesn’t have the credits you claim.

Here’s a little quote on statistics:
“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
~Aaron Levenstein

Why anyone would attack those who work for an honest days pay is beyond me, but than you did defend excessive oil companies profits so I guess that explains your position...
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2012,12:10 pm
Real World Reality: "Right-To-Work" laws cut wages and Benefits, puts a drag on the economy, causes a loss of tax revenue, it’s generally a shortsighted bad idea.
The Republican’s see an opportunity to attack funding from unions to the party that represents the working class, the Democrats...
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 04 2012,12:15 pm
@Expatriate

I am pretty sure my main point in the oil company debate and why I posted in the first place was because you were posting completely inaccurate information, that classic "these companies pay no taxes" or the also popular "they had record profits this quarter" while completely ignoring the fact their profit margins are really pretty average.  Bloggers tend to really jazz up their info and sensationalize their pieces so you should be careful, and when you feel yourself really getting sucked in take a step back.

I will admit, I have a difficult time seeing this issue from union workers perspective.  I have never belonged to a union.  I have acquired a decent education and experience (from lower middle class upbringing), and when I think my employer is taking advantage of me or getting my skills at a discount I start interviewing at other companies and get a new job.  No fees for protection, and I am capable of negotiating on my own behalf.

So Expat, did you read past the first page of the report?  In my opinion it's a well cited research piece and has valuable information, and whether from the St. Louis Fed or authors with special access through the Fed you could learn from it.  It's also ironic that you critisize the link but rarely ever cite anything, but I suppose we are who we are.

The first question that came to my mind when looking at the report was the wage rate of those jobs created, employment growth in my mind is more about numbers of jobs and less about the wage growth, I suspect at some point its a question of 1,000 jobs at $20/hour or 2,000 jobs at $10/hour.  

It's a complicated situation, it's not fair that shops now are either union or non-union, much like its not fair that in a post right to work environment union and non-union workers could be more mixed together causing the non-union workers to get free protection (Progressives arguing against free rides is kind of funny).  

I also believe that if unions are good for labor, labor will continue to overwhelmingly support unions and pay their dues.  Why are union leaders and some union members so worried about their fellow co-workers not continuing to pay their dues?  Is it that they feel many people do not see the value?  If unions are truely valuable to labor, all unions need is the right to organize (which they will still have) and they should be fine.  Making union dues mandatory is like imposing a job tax.

I believe unions played an important role in our past and provided American workers with a higher standard of living.  I also believe they have driven up the cost of doing business and are now harming the labor force, which me and Abe consider a treasonous act.  If unions really want to help American workers they will focus their efforts on increasing the cost of asian labor.  They could of course go the protectionist route but that is a whole different debate.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 04 2012,12:42 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 04 2012,12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Real World Reality: "Right-To-Work" laws cut wages and Benefits, puts a drag on the economy, causes a loss of tax revenue, it’s generally a shortsighted bad idea.
The Republican’s see an opportunity to attack funding from unions to the party that represents the working class, the Democrats...

This is all very anecdotal but I will play along and add my opnions along with yours.

"Right-To-Work" laws cut wages and Benefits: I will agree its possible, if workers at a factory currently pay no health premiums and the company is asking them to now pay $200 a month to insure their entire family, that will decrease wages, or if they change to a higher deductable health plan that will cut their benefits.  If the company closes up shop and goes out of business or overseas that will also cut wages and benefits.  Clearly there are trade-offs, and I wouldn't deny that.

Causes a loss of tax revenue: In the example above (anecdotal of course) if that fictional factory were located in a right to work state and was not unionized, tax revenue would be saved.

Generally a shortsighted bad idea: seems this could go both ways as well, depending on which side you are on.  One could argue that voting down right to work could drive away business making it a shortsighted bad idea.

Republicans see an opportunity to attack a funding source of the Democrats:  On this we can agree, I suspect that republicans and democrats spend so much time fighting each other that it is truely about the funding source and not about what is best for an economy, that however does not make it wrong.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 04 2012,5:24 pm
Libbie continues to mouth the party line of "global warming"

QUOTE
Not one thing in that article debunks global warming, at best you had someone that wasn't there when the photo was taken claimed the bears weren't far from land and could easily swim back to shore.


How many quotes do you need before you set down the Kool-Aid?  From Natural News"

null< My Webpage >  
QUOTE
According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from the US government's Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths -- and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm.

It all stems from an unusual air observation of what appeared to be four dead polar bears floating in the sea. From 1,500 feet (457 meters) in the air, observers reported to study author and biologist Charles Monnett, as well as contributor Jeffrey Gleason, that dead polar bears had been observed, which the duo later used to make various statements, including that "drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues."



Learn more: < http://www.naturalnews.com/033370_...BuhIlUH >


Libbie--
QUOTE
That's just a flat out lie, there was no "fudging of numbers".

 Yeah--RIIIGGHHHT!  Look at the "polar bear" issue.  Even OwlGore couldn't find a dead polar bear for his crockumentary--he had to animate one! :rofl:

Rosalind shares a Kool-aid cocktail with Libbie--
QUOTE
Every single person who has been documenting polar bears the last several years has stated that they are disappearing rapidly
 That's not true, either--as you would find if you actually used your computer to look things up.    Maybe we should change your post to "every single liberal that swallowed this hoax believes that polar bears are decreasing. :rofl:

No less an authority than Canada's own National Post disagrees.
< My Webpage >

QUOTE
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

:oops:

I fly to Churchill, on Hudson's Bay every year for goose hunting.  Churchill is the "Polar Bear Capital of the World"--an entire industry has grown up there to let people see the polar bears.  The Mayor of the city operates both a goose hunting camp, and an eco-tour camp to help people view Arctic wildlife.

Two years ago, they received a call from a distraught Global Warming believer that wanted to come up and see the polar bears.  They told them that they were booked up for the year, but could accomodate him next year.  He sobbed into the phone "But next year, they'll all be DEAD!" :dunce:

Libbie's own words
QUOTE
That's the difference between liberals and republicans, if the facts don't fit the republican's position they just make up their own facts/lies that will support their position. If the facts don't fit the liberal's position the liberal changes their position to reflect the facts.

 In this case, that would be YOU trying to adjust the facts to fit the Owlgore fantasy! :p
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 04 2012,6:33 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 04 2012,12:52 am)
QUOTE
Mumbles the clown--
QUOTE

Ever heard of "Climategate"--the wholesale fudging of the numbers by "climate scientists" to achieve the desired outcome?  Far from objective.

That's just a flat out lie, there was no "fudging of numbers".

QUOTE

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy >



That's the difference between liberals and republicans, if the facts don't fit the republican's position they just make up their own facts/lies that will support their position. If the facts don't fit the liberal's position the liberal changes their position to reflect the facts.

Santeria--
How dumb does a person have to be to attempt to debunk NASA with a Newsbuster story?
QUOTE

Australian TV Exposes Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

< www.newsbusters.org/node/11879 >

Not one thing in that article debunks global warming, at best you had someone that wasn't there when the photo was taken claimed the bears weren't far from land and could easily swim back to shore.

So in the minds of a right wing kook global warming is a hoax because a photo used to illustrate the effects of global warming was 2 1/2 years old and the person taking the photo didn't know if they were stranded or not?

It's almost like the loons think that scientists based climate change on that photo of polar bears.
QUOTE

Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?


"The time of year was August, summer.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch"

Read Amanda Byrd's response to Media Watch's questions.


Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.

So were the polar bears stranded?


"They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch"

< http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887890.htm >

wow lib...you are sure quick with name-calling when your called out on something...wow, youre not very analytical just emotional and brutal!
try checking other sources...
NASA is funded by whom???
Check out: NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change-AGAIN-Big...
Global Warming is Fake - How YOU Can Tell
Climate Scientists Fudge the Numbers on Sea Level, UN Uses...
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 04 2012,11:25 pm
QUOTE

How many quotes do you need before you set down the Kool-Aid?  From Natural News"

So NASA isn't a credible source to you kooks but "Natural News" is? :rofl: :dunce:



QUOTE

wow lib...you are sure quick with name-calling when your called out on something...wow, youre not very analytical just emotional and brutal!

Name-calling? Who was it that posted this yesterday?
QUOTE

actually you would be the frickin dumb ass!!
does self-control ring a bell with you!  how about self-respect and dignified!  didnt think so.

How Christian and analytical of you. :crazy:

QUOTE

try checking other sources...


Checking other sources? I used your source to prove you were a liar, what more could you ask for?

QUOTE

NASA is funded by whom???

NASA is funded by the Republican controlled Congress, are you suggesting that NASA is lying?

QUOTE

Check out: NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change-AGAIN-Big...
Global Warming is Fake - How YOU Can Tell
Climate Scientists Fudge the Numbers on Sea Level, UN Uses...

It seems to me you could find a credible source to back up your claims, I mean something other than a misquoted newsmax article.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 04 2012,11:33 pm
My my liberal!!!  I was called the dumb ass first so it was quite appropriate to use terms the poster could clearly understand.
Secondly, your sources are the liars!  Plain and simple and you cant stand that!  They prove nothing except to what extent they will go to prove a point and follow orders!
Nice try with the Newmax...but youre wrong...AGAIN!

Remember also its the House AND the Senate that decide how to spend our tax dollars.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2012,11:47 pm
blahblahblah quote:
QUOTE
am pretty sure my main point in the oil company debate and why I posted in the first place was because you were posting completely inaccurate information, that classic "these companies pay no taxes" or the also popular "they had record profits this quarter" while completely ignoring the fact their profit margins are really pretty average. Bloggers tend to really jazz up their info and sensationalize their pieces so you should be careful, and when you feel yourself really getting sucked in take a step back.

Actually this claim was was made by Senator Sanders, I’ll provide a link to his Senate site, I’m sure you’ll find several rightwing fact finders that say what they did is perfectly legal and it probably is, the money these guys spend lobbying buys a lot of favor..
‘Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.’
< http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroo...9d70de5 >

here’s another link to open secrets showing Exxon’s Lobbying Expenditures in 2009: $27,430,000
< http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby...ar=2009 >

QUOTE
I will admit, I have a difficult time seeing this issue from union workers perspective. I have never belonged to a union. I have acquired a decent education and experience (from lower middle class upbringing), and when I think my employer is taking advantage of me or getting my skills at a discount I start interviewing at other companies and get a new job. No fees for protection, and I am capable of negotiating on my own behalf.

I hope that works out well for you and it just might if you have a decent employer.
I’m not a big fan of Bill O’reilly but I did read one of his books, the title escapes me now but in one of the final chapters he talks about his Father and how the Corporation he’d dedicate his life to screwed him over in the end..To quote O’reilly “stay with a Corporation long enough they screw you over” I believe those were his words...
It’s possible you have a good education and your experience is of value to your employer but all kinds of situations can occur to change that and you’d find yourself on the street.
As for packing and moving to the next job that’s stressful if you have a family, even without family obligations starting over at the bottom elsewhere is risky as well.

QUOTE
It's a complicated situation, it's not fair that shops now are either union or non-union, much like its not fair that in a post right to work environment union and non-union workers could be more mixed together causing the non-union workers to get free protection (Progressives arguing against free rides is kind of funny).
I also believe that if unions are good for labor, labor will continue to overwhelmingly support unions and pay their dues. Why are union leaders and some union members so worried about their fellow co-workers not continuing to pay their dues? Is it that they feel many people do not see the value? If unions are truely valuable to labor, all unions need is the right to organize (which they will still have) and they should be fine. Making union dues mandatory is like imposing a job tax.

The majority of unions that are left in the State operate under what’s called Fair Share, what that means if you choose not to a be a member of the union that’s your choice but at the same time your employer deducts 85% of what would have been your union due fee and gives it to charity.. So choice does exist for the most part, if your in a closed shop because that’s they way the contract reads you have the right under Federal Law to call a vote and decertify and become nonunion..
What I don’t like about this whole situation making RTW an amendment, putting on the ballot and having folks vote on the future of union jobs who have no idea what Right to Work is all about, or why we have unions in the first place!

QUOTE
I believe unions played an important role in our past and provided American workers with a higher standard of living. I also believe they have driven up the cost of doing business and are now harming the labor force, which me and Abe consider a treasonous act. If unions really want to help American workers they will focus their efforts on increasing the cost of asian labor. They could of course go the protectionist route but that is a whole different debate.

I don’t foresee China allowing any real trade unions in their country, that will have to happen from the inside as it did in America... We owe a great deal to unions for the working conditions and wages we enjoy, it’s no secret that union membership is on the declined as are working-class wages .. most young people have no clue of working conditions a hundred short years ago, or of the current war being waged against the unions...
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 04 2012,11:53 pm
QUOTE

No less an authority than Canada's own National Post disagrees.
My Webpage

Well if the FOX News of Canada says it's true...

If anyone took the time to follow the link you'd see the source of the majority of that story is anonymous Inuit polar bear hunters.

I'm not real good with math but if you have 6 areas of polar bears and 3 are stable, 2 are decreasing in population and 1 is increasing then if the areas are equal you're losing population.
QUOTE

The service identifies six Arctic regions where data are insufficient to make a call on the population, including the aforementioned Baffin shores area.

Another six areas are listed as having stable counts, three experienced reduced numbers and two have seen their bears increase.

Inuit also argue the bear population is on the rise along western Hudson Bay, in sharp contrast to the Canadian Wildlife Service, which projects a 22% decline in bear numbers.

Seems the Canadian Wildlife Service has a different view than the FOX news of Canada. I wonder how that part of the story was missed? Like I always say follow his links, and check his sources.

QUOTE

In this case, that would be YOU trying to adjust the facts to fit the Owlgore fantasy!

Well someone is living in a fantasy world.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 05 2012,12:07 am
QUOTE

Secondly, your sources are the liars!

Which sources would that be?

QUOTE

My my liberal!!!  I was called the dumb ass first so it was quite appropriate to use terms the poster could clearly understand.

And quite Christian I might add.

QUOTE

Secondly, your sources are the liars!  Plain and simple and you cant stand that!  They prove nothing except to what extent they will go to prove a point and follow orders!

Are you saying that NASA is lying about Climate Change because Al Gore ordered them to? And because you claim that they are liars I believe you and "can't stand that"? Why would anyone believe anything you say?

You know up to this point I thought you were just an ignorant fundamentalist, but now I'm starting to suspect that you like to hit the sauce. :beer:
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 05 2012,2:42 am

(Liberal @ Mar. 05 2012,12:07 am)
QUOTE
You know up to this point I thought you were just an ignorant fundamentalist, but now I'm starting to suspect that you like to hit the sauce. :beer:

:rofl: Santiani and The Shimmy are definitely ignorant redneck yankees.. A match made in heaven.. :oops:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,4:29 am
This has been one he'll of a thread, from unions to the global warming hoax.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 05 2012,7:12 am
ObamaCare started out as.. Yes.. Yes.. RomneyCare :rofl:

God, this has to be the best spit in the eye of Shimmy Jimmy Hanson.. May the best Care win.. :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,7:59 am
^How about just taking care of one's self?
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 05 2012,8:41 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,7:59 am)
QUOTE
^How about just taking care of one's self?

People like you end up with bad credit because you don't pay your bills..

How is that tractor trailer/sleeper treating one's self? :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 05 2012,8:56 am
QUOTE
Right-to-Work 101
Why These Laws Hurt Our Economy, Our Society, and Our Democracy
By David Madland, Karla Walter, Ross Eisenbrey
What are right-to-work laws?
In states where the law exists, “right-to-work” makes it illegal for workers and employers to negotiate a contract requiring everyone who benefits from a union contract to pay their fair share of the costs of administering it. Right-to-work has nothing to do with people being forced to be union members.

Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don’t support. What right-to-work laws do is allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract—such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline—without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.

That’s because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues.

There is scant evidence these laws create jobs, help workers, or are good for a state’s economy, as supporters claim. Instead, these laws weaken unions and thereby hurt workers, the middle class, and local economies. We present here a Right-to-Work 101 so that the debate over right-to-work laws proceeds based on the facts.

Right-to-work laws don’t create jobs
Researchers who study the impact of right-to-work laws find that these laws do not create jobs—despite supporters’ claims to the contrary. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce, for example, claims that “unionization increases labor costs,” and therefore makes a given location less attractive to capital. The purpose, then, of right-to-work laws is to undermine unions and therefore lower wages in a given state, thus attracting more companies into the state.

But in practice this low-road strategy for job creation just doesn’t pan out. Despite boosters’ promises of job creation, researchers find that right-to-work had “no significant positive impact whatsoever on employment” in Oklahoma, the only state to have adopted a right-to-work law over the past 25 years⎯until Indiana did so days ago⎯and consequently the best example of how a new adopter of right-to-work laws might fare in today’s economy. In fact, both the number of companies relocating to Oklahoma and the total number of manufacturing jobs in the state fell by about a third since it adopted such a law in 2001.

Indeed, most right-to-work advocates’ purported evidence of job growth is based on outdated research and misleading assertions. An Indiana Chamber of Commerce-commissioned study found right-to-work states had higher employment growth between 1977 and 2008 compared to states without a right-to-work law, but much of that growth could be attributed to other factors. Those factors included the states’ educational-attainment level, infrastructure quality, and even its weather—which the study ignored.

Recent research from the Economic Policy Institute that controlled for these factors finds that right-to-work laws have not increased employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them.

Right-to-work laws hurt workers
Right-to-work laws lower worker pay and benefits and make workplaces more dangerous for all workers—whether unionized or not—by weakening unions.

Unions have a significant and positive effect on the wages and benefits of union and nonunion workers alike. Unionized workers are able to bargain for better wages, benefits, and work conditions than they would otherwise receive if negotiating individually. The effect on the average worker—unionized or not—of working in a right-to-work state is to earn approximately $1,500 less per year than a similar worker in a state without such a law.

Workers in right-to-work states are also significantly less likely to receive employer-provided health insurance or pensions. If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide.

The fact that unionization raises people’s wages and benefits is borne out by surveys of union members and by common sense. Unions also affect the wages and benefits of nonunion workers by setting standards that gradually become norms throughout industries. To compete for workers, nonunion employers in highly unionized industries have to pay their workers higher wages. And unions support government policies (such as minimum-wage laws) that raise workers’ pay.

Right-to-work laws also may hurt workplace safety. For instance, the occupational-fatality rate in the construction industry—one of the most hazardous in terms of workplace deaths—is 34 percent higher in right-to-work states than in states without such laws. And one academic study finds that increasing union density has a positive effect on workplace safety in states with no right-to-work laws (for every 1 percent increase in unionization rates there is a 0.35 percent decline in construction fatality rates), but in right-to-work states, the effect of union density on safety disappears.

Unions are democratic organizations: If employees didn’t like their contracts, they would vote to reject the contract, vote to change their union officers, or vote to get rid of their union—all of which can be done under current law.

Right-to-work laws weaken the middle class
By weakening unions right-to-work laws also weaken the middle class. From pushing for fair wages and good benefits, to encouraging citizens to vote, to supporting Social Security and advocating for family-leave benefits, unions make the middle class strong by giving workers a voice in both the market and our democracy.

Nine of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of workers in unions—Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma—are right-to-work states. All of them also are saddled with a relatively weak middle class. The share of total income going to the middle class—defined as the middle 60 percent of the population—in each of these states is below the national average.

If unionization rates increased by 10 percentage points nationwide, the typical middle-class household—unionized or not—would earn $1,479 more each year. In fact, dollar for dollar, strengthening unions is nearly as important to the middle class as boosting college-graduation rates.

Right-to-work laws hurt small business
Since few small businesses are ever unionized, changing union regulations won’t affect them. Yet unlike big manufacturers who can choose which state to expand into, most small businesses are rooted in a local community and dependent on local consumers. When right-to-work laws lower the wages and benefits of area workers, they also threaten to reduce the number of jobs in the economy by reducing consumer demand.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every $1 million in wage cuts, six jobs are lost in the service, retail, construction, real estate, and other local industries. For big manufacturers that sell their products all over the globe, this may be less important.

For small businesses that depend on local sales, reducing the amount of disposable income in local employees’ pockets can be devastating.

Right-to-work laws create rules that would hurt all organizations but only apply to unions
The corporate lobbyists who push for right-to-work legislation—such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Work Committee—want unions to operate under a set of rules that none of them accept for themselves. These lobbyists would never think of serving the interests of companies that refuse to pay dues to their organizations, yet they want unions to do so in order to drain their resources.

Federal law already guarantees every worker who is represented by a union equal and nondiscriminatory representation—meaning unions must provide the same services, vigorous advocacy, and contractual rights and benefits. This guarantee applies regardless of whether the employee is a union member. So if a non-dues-paying employee encounters a problem at work, the union is required to provide that individual full representation at no charge.

By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce and other employer organizations restrict some of their most valuable services to dues-paying members. When asked if they would agree to provide all services to any interested business, even if that business does not pay dues, Chamber representatives explained that they could not do that because dues are the primary source of Chamber funding and it would be unfair to other dues-paying members. And that certainly makes sense—for unions as well as the Chamber.

The Chamber of Commerce and National Right to Work Committee want unions to be the only organizations in the country that are required to provide full services to individuals who pay nothing for them. This is no different than enabling some American citizens to opt out of paying taxes while making available all government services. This is not an agenda to increase employee rights but rather to undermine the viability of independent-employee organizations.

Right-to-work laws are bad for our political democracy
Right-to-work laws infringe on the democratic rights of the electorate by weakening unions. Unions help boost political participation among ordinary citizens and convert this participation into an effective voice for pro-middle-class policies. By weakening unions, they are less able to advocate for pro-worker policies within our government and help get workers out to vote.

Research shows that for every percentage-point increase in union density, voter turnout increased by 0.2 to 0.25 percentage points. This means that if unionization rates were 10 percentage points higher during the 2008 presidential election, 2.6 million to 3.2 million more citizens would have voted.

Unions also help translate workers’ interests to elected officials and ensure that government serves the economic needs of the middle class. They do this by encouraging the public to support certain policies as well as by directly advocating for specific reforms. Unions were critical in securing government policies that support the middle class such as Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, family leave, and minimum-wage laws.

Indeed, this may be a large part of why many conservatives support right-to-work laws. Research demonstrates that supporters’ claims that these laws will create jobs and strengthen local economies are not credible. Instead, supporters may back these laws as a pretext for attacking an already weakened union movement in hopes of crippling it as a political force and as an advocate for all workers.

The bottom line: Right-to-work laws work against the critical needs of our economy, our society, and our democracy.



< http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues...rk.html >
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 05 2012,9:05 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,7:59 am)
QUOTE
^How about just taking care of one's self?

now that is a novel idea!

lest we forget that does require effort, responsibility, and self-dicipline..unfamiliar territory to the left!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,9:06 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 05 2012,8:41 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,7:59 am)
QUOTE
^How about just taking care of one's self?

People like you end up with bad credit because you don't pay your bills..

How is that tractor trailer/sleeper treating one's self? :rofl:

First of all I have a very nice credit rating thankyou. It comes from years of hard work, depending on myself and partly from not having to pay union dues.

I go home every night, I don't sleep in my truck like some "road gypsy"
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,9:11 am
Oh crap, I almost forgot ask you Alky, is it company policy that when you're greeting people at Wally World that you have to smile? :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,9:15 am
Nice article Expatriate, it figures that David Madland is a PHD student at Georgetown.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 05 2012,10:50 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,9:06 am)
QUOTE
First of all I have a very nice credit rating thankyou. It comes from years of hard work, depending on myself and partly from not having to pay union dues.

I go home every night, I don't sleep in my truck like some "road gypsy"

Seriously!? Do you even know how much union dues are? The few dollars I pay per week makes me thousands more in wages and benefits as compared to my non union counter parts. Classic case of the "saving a penny to lose a dollar" mentality.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,11:30 am
^you have no idea how much I make.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 05 2012,12:49 pm
The working-class is seeing their way of life on the verge of collapse as health insurance costs skyrocket, pensions disappear, and real wages stagnate. The future of worker depends on a united voice that can stand up to powerful interests.
Make no mistake about it, Right to Work is not only an attack on union members but the working class as a whole, this is a continuation of the trickle down economics of Reagan era union busting policy...
Republican True Colors....
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,12:59 pm
Yes indeed, united,'just like local P-9 back in the eighties when Jim Guyette lead the sheep to slaughter and the national union abandoned them.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 05 2012,1:06 pm
Unbelievable lol. I can't believe you guys even try to discredit NASA.
Ok Santorini and Jim, I can't wait to see how you spin this info:

All of the following links are big oil companies admitting fossil fuels contribute to climate change. It's funny how we never hear this on the news anywhere.

BP climate change:  http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036321&contentId=7067103


Chevron climate change:  http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/?utm_campaign=Tier_3&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=Google&utm_term=global_warming

Shell climate change: < http://www.shell.com/home..._change >


ConocoPhillips climate change:  http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx


ExxonMobil climate change:  http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/safety_climate.aspx

Is MIT credible? Must not be since they don't agree with you.
MIT report: < http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html >


MIT report: < http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html >

The debunking of your debunking: < http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...87i.pdf >

All we ever see in the media are "expert" non experts denying climate change. Any little chance deniers have to try to discredit anything having to do with it they jump at. That gets plenty of attention, where as anything credible supporting climate change information is completely hidden.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 05 2012,1:08 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,11:30 am)
QUOTE
^you have no idea how much I make.

You make at or near 50 Cents per mile with none or limited benefits.. Busy season has started.. Give it Hell..

Don't forget to pay your bills Mr. Nice Credit. :rofl:  :sarcasm:
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 05 2012,1:52 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,11:30 am)
QUOTE
^you have no idea how much I make.

Ditto.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,1:57 pm

(alcitizens @ Mar. 05 2012,1:08 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,11:30 am)
QUOTE
^you have no idea how much I make.

You make at or near 50 Cents per mile with none or limited benefits.. Busy season has started.. Give it Hell..

Don't forget to pay your bills Mr. Nice Credit. :rofl:  :sarcasm:

Damn Alky, that must seem like big money to you, let me know when you get a clue. :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 05 2012,2:07 pm

(Moparman @ Mar. 05 2012,1:52 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 05 2012,11:30 am)
QUOTE
^you have no idea how much I make.

Ditto.

good enough. :thumbsup:
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2012,3:17 pm
Rosalind--
QUOTE
Any little chance deniers have to try to discredit anything having to do with it they jump at. That gets plenty of attention, where as anything credible supporting climate change information is completely hidden.

 After ALL the OwlGore hoopla, you have the nerve to make THAT claim? :rofl:

Rosalind--
QUOTE
Unbelievable lol. I can't believe you guys even try to discredit NASA.
 You tied the NASA EMPLOYEE fraud, James Hansen, to NASA.  He is a long-time climate radical--and the author of the since-discredited "hockey stick" graph that Owlgore built his own empire upon.  He was acting on his own--not on the part of NASA.

Far from unanimity that you would have us believe among climate scientist, there are THOUSANDS that do not believe in man-caused "global warming."  Here's a list of some of the more prominent, from Wikipedia
QUOTE
Andrew Freedman, an environmental journalist and columnist at the Washington Post, believes the American Meteorological Society erred in giving Hansen its 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal: "By citing his 'clear communication of climate science in the public arena,' they may have actually sanctioned his political advocacy. Such advocacy... threatens to paint the AMS as having a political agenda too." [90] Other AMS members have also criticized the award.[90][91]

Physicist Freeman Dyson is critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” [92] Dyson "doesn’t know what he’s talking about", Hansen responded. "He should first do his homework." [92] Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by the New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."[93]

After Hansen's arrest in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate." [86] In 2009, Hansen advocated the participation of citizens at a March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. Hansen stated, "We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet".[94]

New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert believes Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." [95] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible..."[95]

New York Times climate columnist Christa Marshall asks if Hansen still matters in the ongoing climate debate, noting that he "has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system."[96] "The right wing loves what he's doing," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.[96] Hansen said that he had to speak out, since few others could explain the links between politics and the climate models. "You just have to say what you think is right," he said


Hansen was rebuked by his former boss at NASA for his self-serving claims.
QUOTE
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”

..."I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the... Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results," Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters...

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,"


You still believe that the issue is settled?  Here is a link  to the U.S. Senate committee on the environment--there are over 700 ACTUAL climate scientists that don't believe in man-cause "global warming"--and their credentials.  Unlike the people that fell for the "global warming" scam, these people are actual SCIENTISTS--not UN lackeys, not a goofy ex-vice president, not Hollywood actors.  nullhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7< My Webpage >

Since you place confidence in NASA, look at this study.  Far from talking THEORY, NASA actually looked at how much heat was radiated into space.  You probably didn't see this if you get your news from Colbert or Daily Kos. :sarcasm:  :rofl:  < My Webpage >

You ignore the climategate scandal--the very E-mails that prove that the numbers are fudged < My Webpage >  How do you account for that? :dunno:

According to Rassmussen polling, 69% of Americans believe that scientists have fudged the numbers to fit their own beliefs.  I'll put you in the minority that still believes Owlgore.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2012,3:36 pm
Libbie--
QUOTE
Well if the FOX News of Canada says it's true...

If anyone took the time to follow the link you'd see the source of the majority of that story is anonymous Inuit polar bear hunters.

I'm not real good with math but if you have 6 areas of polar bears and 3 are stable, 2 are decreasing in population and 1 is increasing then if the areas are equal you're losing population.
 You don't seem to do well with reading and comprehension, either! :p

Far from being anecdotal, the article relies on GOVERNMENT (libbies LOVE AND TRUST GOVERNMENT, AFTER ALL!) :rofl:

Here's the quote, again
QUOTE
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.


There you have it--from official government sources--there are more bears than ever in the arctic.  That checks with Environment Canada's Churchill observations, that there are more bears today than at any time since they started counting them.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 05 2012,7:26 pm
Anyone that follows your FOX news of Canada link can see that the Canadian Wildlife Service projects a 22% decline in bear numbers. I know that doesn't go along with what the "officials" in small town Alaska told you but I'm guessing you can't find any proof that "story" ever happened. Of course you'll huff and puff about going to Alaska because you seem to think that by flying into an airport somewhere you become an expert on the area. I'm guessing this "story" will fall apart just like your "story" about the hole in the ozone being unaffected by man. :dunce:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 05 2012,7:47 pm

(jimhanson @ Mar. 05 2012,3:17 pm)
QUOTE
Rosalind--
QUOTE
Any little chance deniers have to try to discredit anything having to do with it they jump at. That gets plenty of attention, where as anything credible supporting climate change information is completely hidden.

 After ALL the OwlGore hoopla, you have the nerve to make THAT claim? :rofl:

Rosalind--
QUOTE
Unbelievable lol. I can't believe you guys even try to discredit NASA.
 You tied the NASA EMPLOYEE fraud, James Hansen, to NASA.  He is a long-time climate radical--and the author of the since-discredited "hockey stick" graph that Owlgore built his own empire upon.  He was acting on his own--not on the part of NASA.

Far from unanimity that you would have us believe among climate scientist, there are THOUSANDS that do not believe in man-caused "global warming."  Here's a list of some of the more prominent, from Wikipedia
QUOTE
Andrew Freedman, an environmental journalist and columnist at the Washington Post, believes the American Meteorological Society erred in giving Hansen its 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal: "By citing his 'clear communication of climate science in the public arena,' they may have actually sanctioned his political advocacy. Such advocacy... threatens to paint the AMS as having a political agenda too." [90] Other AMS members have also criticized the award.[90][91]

Physicist Freeman Dyson is critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” [92] Dyson "doesn’t know what he’s talking about", Hansen responded. "He should first do his homework." [92] Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by the New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."[93]

After Hansen's arrest in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate." [86] In 2009, Hansen advocated the participation of citizens at a March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. Hansen stated, "We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet".[94]

New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert believes Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." [95] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible..."[95]

New York Times climate columnist Christa Marshall asks if Hansen still matters in the ongoing climate debate, noting that he "has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system."[96] "The right wing loves what he's doing," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.[96] Hansen said that he had to speak out, since few others could explain the links between politics and the climate models. "You just have to say what you think is right," he said


Hansen was rebuked by his former boss at NASA for his self-serving claims.
QUOTE
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”

..."I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the... Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results," Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters...

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,"


You still believe that the issue is settled?  Here is a link  to the U.S. Senate committee on the environment--there are over 700 ACTUAL climate scientists that don't believe in man-cause "global warming"--and their credentials.  Unlike the people that fell for the "global warming" scam, these people are actual SCIENTISTS--not UN lackeys, not a goofy ex-vice president, not Hollywood actors.  nullhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7< My Webpage >

Since you place confidence in NASA, look at this study.  Far from talking THEORY, NASA actually looked at how much heat was radiated into space.  You probably didn't see this if you get your news from Colbert or Daily Kos. :sarcasm:  :rofl:  < My Webpage >

You ignore the climategate scandal--the very E-mails that prove that the numbers are fudged < My Webpage >  How do you account for that? :dunno:

According to Rassmussen polling, 69% of Americans believe that scientists have fudged the numbers to fit their own beliefs.  I'll put you in the minority that still believes Owlgore.

Jim, I'd like to thank you for that wikipedia link! I guess you aren't bothering to look at the links I keep giving. You keep talking about one NASA scientist who you say was discredited, yet I have given a link to a whole website from NASA which describes in scientific detail about climate change.
Also one of the last links I posted, along with all the major oil companies themselves stating that climate change is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, and that fossil fuels and other human activity is a large factor. One of the links I posted was a debunking of your "climategate". It was an independent investigation which came to the conclusion that the emails were taken out of context and that the scientists involved did nothing wrong. Thanks to your wiki link on "climategate" I found 7 other independent studies coming to the same conclusion. This leads me to believe that not only do you not read my links, you also do not read your own. Your link backed up everything I have already said. It's nice to have access to 7 more studies now though. Thanks!

Copied from that site:  The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.[17]
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 05 2012,8:54 pm
Rosalind,

Google:  U.S. Senate Minority Report

Could over 400 reputable scientists be wrong?
How about the ones that changed their position from supporters to global warming hoax?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 05 2012,9:01 pm
This U.S. Senate Minority Report?
Center for Inquiry Reveals that 80 Percent of ‘dissenting scientists’ in report haven’t published peer-reviewed climate research

Washington, D.C. (July 17, 2009) – The Office of Public Policy, the Washington, D.C. lobbying arm of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), an organization committed to defending scientific integrity, has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming. The dissenting scientists are cited in the U.S. Senate Minority Report, a document being hailed by lawmakers opposed to legislation needed to slow global climate change. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla initially released the report through the office of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is the  ranking minority member.

In this Senate Minority Report, almost 700 individuals with implied scientific credentials are offered as evidence that measures to address climate change are premature, and that further research is needed. Sen. Inhofe has used this report to support the claim that there is an ever-increasing international groundswell of scientific opposition to the position of approximately 2,000 scientists whose work is the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Science Report (IPCC) released in 2007. The Center for Inquiry maintains that the Senate Minority report fails to make a credible case that a large number of actual climate scientists take exception to the near-universal consensus of the  research community.

“It is beyond question that the work of the U.N. scientists has survived the scrutiny of their colleagues, and that they constitute a significant majority of active researches addressing this problem today. This led us to take a careful look at the broad conclusions of the Senate Minority Report,” said Dr. Stuart Jordan, science policy advisor to the CFI Office of Public Policy and retired emeritus senior staff scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”  

After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:

• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay, the Center for Inquiry’s chief executive officer, is concerned about the falsehoods and half-truths being uttered by lawmakers now arming themselves for a major fight over legislation addressing climate change. Said Lindsay, “Sen. Inhofe and others have had some success in conveying to the media the impression that the number of scientists skeptical about man-made global warming is swelling, yet this is demonstrably not true.” Lindsay points out that Inhofe’s office had misleadingly claimed in a press release that the number of dissenting scientists outnumbered by more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC. “But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policymakers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore,” asserted Lindsay.

Dr. Paul Kurtz, the founder of the Center for Inquiry, stressed that “It is essential that the government base its policies on the best scientific information we have and it is a preponderance of scientific judgment that global warming poses a dire threat to the future of humanity on the planet.”

After painstakingly taking the time to vet many of the scientists now serving as “consensus busters” Jordan says that it is difficult for him and his colleagues not to conclude that “this is one more effort of a contrarian community to block corrective action to address a major—in this case global—problem fraught with harmful consequences for human welfare and the environment.”  

The complete Center for Inquiry Credibility Project was released to the public at a press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on July 17, 2009.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 05 2012,9:05 pm
Jim's accidental linking to the wiki page describing all the investigations done on "climategate" yet NOBODY knowing it had all been debunked really does show how all the media help hide anything pertaining to the possible truth of climate change, but how they jump at, and edit, skew and lie with anything they can to discredit it. Everyone knew about those emails and how they were reported-even though it was fabricated and twisted. But nobody knew that it was debunked at least 8 times.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 06 2012,9:41 am
Try this one, Rosalind :peaceout:

< http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf >
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 06 2012,10:01 am
Big Energy (oil) runs everything. If they say the Sun is green, then by God, so do the recipients of their lobbying dollars (Congress).

If we truly are fouling our own comfortable nest, then our progeny will have to deal with it. If that's not enough for you to even question the possibility, I don't know what would be. If we're not, well, there's no harm in a little environmental self-examination, is there? Or are you some Joe Soucheray-type Cylinder-Index-Worshipping moron? Is this all some club membership requirement to you?
Posted by grassman on Mar. 06 2012,10:46 am
:O
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2012,11:32 am

(Santorini @ Mar. 06 2012,9:41 am)
QUOTE
Try this one, Rosalind :peaceout:

< http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf >

Santorini, why do you not read what I post? My last post was in response to your US Senate Minority Report. I guess I'll highlight some things:
“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”  

• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

After painstakingly taking the time to vet many of the scientists now serving as “consensus busters” Jordan says that it is difficult for him and his colleagues not to conclude that “this is one more effort of a contrarian community to block corrective action to address a major—in this case global—problem fraught with harmful consequences for human welfare and the environment.”  
-------------------------------------------------------------
So I did some checking on James Inhofe, the senator who put that Senate Minority Report together. He's a republican senator from Oklahoma. Check his voting record. He has voted in favor of big oil, coal and natural gas every single time any vote pertaining to them came up. Every single time. It's also interesting to note that the "climate gate" thing exploded into the news only a couple of weeks before a global climate debate of country leaders.
Plus, it sure is a time and energy wasters when we the people are completely split on some very important issues. Also when we are distracted by BS they throw at us all too often. We have to pull our freaking heads out of our butts.
Santorini, you and I are not enemies. We are all being lied to. To be honest I don't trust that "my side" is 100% truthful in their stands either. I even tried staying away from the "climate change" thing. You are the one that kept bringing it up. I have only been asking you to use common sense. It's almost impossible to find out the truth about anything anymore. All sides are flooding us with misinformation and lies on a constant basis. I only ask we try thinking for ourselves when it comes to most issues. All of our fuels and energies are poisoning us and the planet at an alarming rate. I've posted undeniable proof of that. Two whole towns (at least) have had their water poisoned. It's undrinkable. Countless rural water sources, air and land poisoned. I'm worried about my children, and their children for God's sake. We do have safer cleaner alternatives, but we are not able to get things going in that direction. We can fix things, it's not all doom and gloom. But we need our leaders and media to stop their complete BS in lying to us and keeping us stupid. Until they do stop we need to think more for ourselves. We also need to weed through all the BS to hopefully find a little bit of truth when common sense alone won't cut it.
------------------------------
Botto is right about what he said on Big Energy. It just takes some work to see that. Even in their whitewash attempts to "go green" they are full of crap. They are trying to keep us dependent on them for our energy and fuels. If we each had our own sources (which is possible) then the Big Energy guys don't get any more money from us.

Grassman, I just gotta say, you find the neatest cartoons lol.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2012,11:50 am
Another interesting thing is: The person who owned most of Solyndra is a big oil billionaire. George Kaiser.
Two more big "green" companies that received big government funding also just declared bankruptcy. Beacon Power and SpectraWatt. I haven't yet found out who owns either of them. But if I was to guess??
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 06 2012,11:51 am
QUOTE

Santorini, why do you not read what I post? My last post was in response to your US Senate Minority Report. I guess I'll highlight some things:

These conservatives are just not wordy people, if you could find a fat old drug addict with erectile dysfunction to read it to them then you might get them to understand.
Posted by grassman on Mar. 06 2012,4:01 pm
:clap:
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 06 2012,4:34 pm
^Truth, yo.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 06 2012,11:18 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 06 2012,11:51 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Santorini, why do you not read what I post? My last post was in response to your US Senate Minority Report. I guess I'll highlight some things:

These conservatives are just not wordy people, if you could find a fat old drug addict with erectile dysfunction to read it to them then you might get them to understand.

Liberal, what is wrong with you?  You are ALWAYS so angry :dunno:
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 06 2012,11:42 pm
What part of that post reminds you of anger? I was just pointing out that you clearly don't like to read and would rather have your "main man" Limbaugh read you the news and give you your opinion. It's why they call you ditto heads.

Trust me when I respond to your posts I'm usually laughing. Granted I am usually laughing at you, but I'm certainly not angry.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 06 2012,11:51 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 06 2012,11:32 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Mar. 06 2012,9:41 am)
QUOTE
Try this one, Rosalind :peaceout:

< http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf >

Santorini, why do you not read what I post? My last post was in response to your US Senate Minority Report. I guess I'll highlight some things:
“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”  

• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

After painstakingly taking the time to vet many of the scientists now serving as “consensus busters” Jordan says that it is difficult for him and his colleagues not to conclude that “this is one more effort of a contrarian community to block corrective action to address a major—in this case global—problem fraught with harmful consequences for human welfare and the environment.”  
-------------------------------------------------------------
So I did some checking on James Inhofe, the senator who put that Senate Minority Report together. He's a republican senator from Oklahoma. Check his voting record. He has voted in favor of big oil, coal and natural gas every single time any vote pertaining to them came up. Every single time. It's also interesting to note that the "climate gate" thing exploded into the news only a couple of weeks before a global climate debate of country leaders.
Plus, it sure is a time and energy wasters when we the people are completely split on some very important issues. Also when we are distracted by BS they throw at us all too often. We have to pull our freaking heads out of our butts.
Santorini, you and I are not enemies. We are all being lied to. To be honest I don't trust that "my side" is 100% truthful in their stands either. I even tried staying away from the "climate change" thing. You are the one that kept bringing it up. I have only been asking you to use common sense. It's almost impossible to find out the truth about anything anymore. All sides are flooding us with misinformation and lies on a constant basis. I only ask we try thinking for ourselves when it comes to most issues. All of our fuels and energies are poisoning us and the planet at an alarming rate. I've posted undeniable proof of that. Two whole towns (at least) have had their water poisoned. It's undrinkable. Countless rural water sources, air and land poisoned. I'm worried about my children, and their children for God's sake. We do have safer cleaner alternatives, but we are not able to get things going in that direction. We can fix things, it's not all doom and gloom. But we need our leaders and media to stop their complete BS in lying to us and keeping us stupid. Until they do stop we need to think more for ourselves. We also need to weed through all the BS to hopefully find a little bit of truth when common sense alone won't cut it.
------------------------------
Botto is right about what he said on Big Energy. It just takes some work to see that. Even in their whitewash attempts to "go green" they are full of crap. They are trying to keep us dependent on them for our energy and fuels. If we each had our own sources (which is possible) then the Big Energy guys don't get any more money from us.

Grassman, I just gotta say, you find the neatest cartoons lol.

Rosalind, ANY sane  person can take one look at your SOURCE...and it loses ALL credibility.
No need to highlight...theres nothing substanitive in your post :dunno:

The center for inquiry?  as a credible, unbiase source?
Really!!??

Anyone can see for themselves
< www.centerforinquiry.net/dc >
< www.centerforinquiry.net/about >

Its basically a group of unhappy, aimless non-believers!
Oh...theres also an athiest curriculum for their schools or classes or what ever...
yea, great source of unbiased, untainted info :rofl:
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 07 2012,12:02 am
QUOTE

Rosalind, ANY sane  person can take one look at your SOURCE...and it loses ALL credibility.

Guess we can count you out then.

QUOTE

Its basically a group of unhappy, aimless non-believers!
Oh...theres also an athiest curriculum for their schools or classes or what ever...
yea, great source of unbiased, untainted info :rofl:

You think scientist should only be listened to if they believe in your fairy tales?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2012,5:10 am
^ Scientist should only be listened to if one agrees with them? That's a two way street. I guess if one forms their own opinions and they're not within the liberal realm of thinking one should be chastised. Conservatives usually aren't wordy people because we can't get a word in edgewise when a liberal start the rants and the raves, throwing down left thinking links like Otis the town drunk throwing down shots. Ah, the shrill screams reminiscent of a prepubescent girl if you don't agree with them. Having more poeple agree on something doesn't always mean they're right,sometimes the brave people are the ones who stand by their principles no matter what the "herd" thinks.

By the way Botto, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in your "fugitive from a packing plant" ass. :dunce:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,5:38 am
This is beginning to get into the realm of ridiculous. So just because the Center For Inquiry wants scientific analyses based upon scientific fact (free from religious influence) they are not credible? Yet, the main guy denying "climate change" has absolutely NO actual knowledge in science at all, except for what Big Energy tells him, and that's ok?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2012,7:53 am
^What I'm trying to say Roz is hat there is so much info out there on both sides that it would be senseless to ruin our economy over a "theory.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,8:06 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2012,7:53 am)
QUOTE
^What I'm trying to say Roz is hat there is so much info out there on both sides that it would be senseless to ruin our economy over a "theory.

Not everything is "theory". Keep in mind I tried staying away from the climate change talk. Can you deny we are poisoning our water, land, air and ourselves by the energies and fuels we use? We do have safe and clean alternatives. Jobs and the economy wouldn't suffer. Guess I can't say that, I'm not an expert. BUT, seems to me that building the safer cleaner sources would create more jobs than what we do now. To be honest, I care about my children and grandchildrens' health more than I care about the economy. But, that aside, I don't see how putting people to work building wind, solar, hydro thermal, any and all alternatives we have, would hurt the economy and create job loss.
Canada and Mexico are even trapping methane gas from landfills. Killing two birds with one stone there. Just that change has created many many jobs. I honestly believe if we started actually making this a priority, our economy would get better, and more jobs would be created.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,8:10 am
We both agree on the "too much info". I could post tons of links backing up what I say about changing our sources of energies and fuels being better for the economy. Tons of links could also be posted with the total opposing view. I think if we stepped back from rhetoric on both sides and discussed things we'd have a much better chance at coming to a consensus.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,8:30 am
I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but America, and many other countries are having drinking water problems. There are some towns which have to have water trucked in to them, and spending millions/billions of dollars on short term fixes for long term problems. We are very rapidly working on going to war with Syria and Iran. Yet we the people are arguing about birth control and jobs. Orwellian is the only word that comes to mind when thinking about America.
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 07 2012,9:02 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2012,5:10 am)
QUOTE
By the way Botto, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in your "fugitive from a packing plant" ass. :dunce:

Um, I've never set foot in a packing plant. But I did grow up around a lot of truckers, though. Not the brightest bunch...
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2012,9:29 am
^that's why I said "fugitive" bright boy. :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2012,9:32 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 07 2012,8:30 am)
QUOTE
I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but America, and many other countries are having drinking water problems. There are some towns which have to have water trucked in to them, and spending millions/billions of dollars on short term fixes for long term problems. We are very rapidly working on going to war with Syria and Iran. Yet we the people are arguing about birth control and jobs. Orwellian is the only word that comes to mind when thinking about America.

Good point about the water, just look at the SW US. All the water diverted to LasVagas alone is a good example.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,10:53 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2012,9:32 am)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 07 2012,8:30 am)
QUOTE
I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but America, and many other countries are having drinking water problems. There are some towns which have to have water trucked in to them, and spending millions/billions of dollars on short term fixes for long term problems. We are very rapidly working on going to war with Syria and Iran. Yet we the people are arguing about birth control and jobs. Orwellian is the only word that comes to mind when thinking about America.

Good point about the water, just look at the SW US. All the water diverted to LasVagas alone is a good example.

Goodgod Vegas is a huge ecological disaster in so many ways. Yes, that is just one of the many big problems we need to be talking about. It's not just the poisoning of drinking water that is happening all over the US, it's also that there are many towns literally running out of drinking water.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2012,12:10 pm
^thankfully,'we live in MN
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,12:19 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2012,12:10 pm)
QUOTE
^thankfully,'we live in MN

Seriously?
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,1:11 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 07 2012,12:02 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Rosalind, ANY sane  person can take one look at your SOURCE...and it loses ALL credibility.

Guess we can count you out then.

QUOTE

Its basically a group of unhappy, aimless non-believers!
Oh...theres also an athiest curriculum for their schools or classes or what ever...
yea, great source of unbiased, untainted info :rofl:

You think scientist should only be listened to if they believe in your fairy tales?

apparently you only believe the lies and fairy tales your scientists are telling you!
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,1:19 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 07 2012,8:06 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2012,7:53 am)
QUOTE
^What I'm trying to say Roz is hat there is so much info out there on both sides that it would be senseless to ruin our economy over a "theory.

Not everything is "theory". Keep in mind I tried staying away from the climate change talk. Can you deny we are poisoning our water, land, air and ourselves by the energies and fuels we use? We do have safe and clean alternatives. Jobs and the economy wouldn't suffer. Guess I can't say that, I'm not an expert. BUT, seems to me that building the safer cleaner sources would create more jobs than what we do now. To be honest, I care about my children and grandchildrens' health more than I care about the economy. But, that aside, I don't see how putting people to work building wind, solar, hydro thermal, any and all alternatives we have, would hurt the economy and create job loss.
Canada and Mexico are even trapping methane gas from landfills. Killing two birds with one stone there. Just that change has created many many jobs. I honestly believe if we started actually making this a priority, our economy would get better, and more jobs would be created.

thats the beauty of science...its all theory!!
observation, experimental investigation, theoretical explainations
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 07 2012,2:50 pm
Science is all theory? You're a moron, there's many theories proven to be fact. For example scientist tell me that if you sit in a car in a closed garage with the engine running you're going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning. If you think that's just a "theory" then why not give it a try and see if you can prove those heathen scientists wrong?
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,8:14 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 07 2012,2:50 pm)
QUOTE
Science is all theory? You're a moron, there's many theories proven to be fact. For example scientist tell me that if you sit in a car in a closed garage with the engine running you're going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning. If you think that's just a "theory" then why not give it a try and see if you can prove those heathen scientists wrong?

youre mixing up science with common sense :dunce:
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,8:17 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 07 2012,5:38 am)
QUOTE
This is beginning to get into the realm of ridiculous. So just because the Center For Inquiry wants scientific analyses based upon scientific fact (free from religious influence) they are not credible? Yet, the main guy denying "climate change" has absolutely NO actual knowledge in science at all, except for what Big Energy tells him, and that's ok?

Yea...free from religious influence but swarming with left-wing propaganda!  Sweet!
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,8:24 pm
I just love how you keep screaming about LEFT WING PROPAGANDA!! And how you keep trying to switch the discussion from how our water, land and air are being poisoned, to climate change. Can't argue absolute clear facts on those things, so try to get us into an area you can blather about for years on end as to not having enough proof.

Pssst, Miss Santorini Koch, you should contact your buddies at Shell, BP and Conoco and tell them to remove their climate change talk from their websites. Sets a bad precedence.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,9:45 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 05 2012,12:07 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Secondly, your sources are the liars!

Which sources would that be?

QUOTE

My my liberal!!!  I was called the dumb ass first so it was quite appropriate to use terms the poster could clearly understand.

And quite Christian I might add.

QUOTE

Secondly, your sources are the liars!  Plain and simple and you cant stand that!  They prove nothing except to what extent they will go to prove a point and follow orders!

Are you saying that NASA is lying about Climate Change because Al Gore ordered them to? And because you claim that they are liars I believe you and "can't stand that"? Why would anyone believe anything you say?

You know up to this point I thought you were just an ignorant fundamentalist, but now I'm starting to suspect that you like to hit the sauce. :beer:

You ask which of your sources are liars...most ALL of them.  They are agenda-driven-fear-mongers who prey on the weak.  Your sources are reminiscent of the fairy tale Henny Penny...the sky is falling...

you are right about the comment I made in relatiation.  As Christians we are constantly reminded we must resist the worlds system of violence.  That system being in the form of slander and denigration.  Slander is gossip and opens the doors to bitterness, envy, malice, hatred, division to the unsuspecting.  So I thank you for pointing that out :angel:

BTW...I never said Gore ordered anyone to do anything...he just put it out there...got a prize for it...and then the scientists involved said his documentary is phoney!  So here we are today with this huge dispute over who is right and who is wrong
(and I am not talking about this site, rather the scientific community).  Theres money to be made in this race and THATS the point!

PS and FYI  Never touch the stuff  :beer:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,10:08 pm
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2012,10:09 pm
Omgosh yay! Bout time.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 07 2012,10:20 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 07 2012,8:24 pm)
QUOTE
I just love how you keep screaming about LEFT WING PROPAGANDA!! And how you keep trying to switch the discussion from how our water, land and air are being poisoned, to climate change. Can't argue absolute clear facts on those things, so try to get us into an area you can blather about for years on end as to not having enough proof.

Pssst, Miss Santorini Koch, you should contact your buddies at Shell, BP and Conoco and tell them to remove their climate change talk from their websites. Sets a bad precedence.

The absolute clear fact, Rosalind, is you have no facts!
You have web-site sources!  You are so blinded you cant even see beyond the left-spin youre spoon-fed and you criticize others!  When are you gonna learn its all about money...the very thing your rebel protest buddies claimed to be against!  Global-warming hoax is about making money!  The fastest one to the finish line gets the most!!  Think about it Rosalind, debate over climate change or your words global warming is more in the public and media than it is in the scientific world!
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 08 2012,12:34 am
A minority of Catholics don't agree with birth control being part of health insurance coverage.. So it shouldn't be allowed for anyone? Just don't use that part of the coverage if it is such a problem.    

Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid.. They just don't get blood transfusions..

Radical Republican Right-Wingers are nothing but frikin idiots.. :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2012,4:39 am
Alky,your hair is starting to smoke.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 08 2012,6:49 pm
AL Citizen--
QUOTE
A minority of Catholics don't agree with birth control being part of health insurance coverage.. So it shouldn't be allowed for anyone? Just don't use that part of the coverage if it is such a problem.
 Nobody is making it illegal--nobody is denying them the right to buy birth control--it's still cheap (and often FREE).

"Don't use that part of the coverage"--the objection they have is that they--and all of the other people that object to the Obamacare REQUIREMENT--is that they have to PAY for something they not only don't believe in, but goes against their religion.  That's insult to injury.

QUOTE
Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid.. They just don't get blood transfusions..
 That's the problem with Obamacare--there is no "opt-out" (unless you are one of the thousands of companies, states, or unions that get a special waiver from the government).

The U.S. has ALWAYS had an ability to opt out for conscientious objectors--even in time of war.

How bad does a program have to be when you have to use the full force of the Federal government to FORCE people to buy something? :p
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 08 2012,8:39 pm
I think most Americans are smart enough to see this has nothing to do with religion and it's all about the republitards trying to stop health care reform.

QUOTE

Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid..

Funny how the kooks didn't have a problem with insurance companies paying for transfusions all these years.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 08 2012,10:20 pm
I still don't understand why America pays more per capita than any other country on health care, and we are ranked 37 as far as adequate health care. What are the top 36 countries doing that we aren't?
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 08 2012,10:28 pm
Clearly this response is mostly for Expatriate, if however others want to take a break from the climate change, religous, and apparently the new healthcare debate Rosalind is about to start, enjoy!

I assume you realize the fact that Exxon paid no income tax in 2009 should sound familiar to you, since I pointed that out to you back in June.  You had made the claim that “Exxon has avoided taxation completely in past years” so I looked it up.  I then told you that in the last 20 years Exxon avoided taxation in only one year, which was 2009.  Then I gave this little tidbit of knowledge some context by gathering data on the 30 companies that were included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  The results of this analysis concluded that in the last decade only 11 companies paid taxes every year, the other 19 had at least one year in which they paid no taxes (domestic taxes).  At that time GE was the biggest offender having not paid any taxes since 2007. (I believe GE’s lack of taxation is okay because it’s Obama’s handout)  

I am completely in favor of eliminating all tax loopholes, for both corporations and individuals.  Loopholes are awarded by special interest groups and as you point out money is spent on lobbyist to gain favor, and that’s not good.  I was actually a bit surprised how small the amount of money spent on lobbyist by Exxon was considering how big of a company they are and how much revenue and profit they generate in absolute terms.  For individuals I say we get rid of mortgage interest deductions, education credits, child dependent deductions, our personal deductions, deductions for our vehicle tabs, all of them, every last one.  A corporations tax rate should be their profit x applicable tax rate (I am guessing my suggested tax rate would appall you) and an individual’s tax rate should be their income x applicable tax rate. (I am totally fine with a progressive tax schedule).  What I am opposed to is completely sensational and unsubstantiated claims about taxes paid by corporations when it’s very easy to look that info up.

You have read one more Bill O’Reilly than I have.  That guy is also nearly impossible to watch, and I can’t imagine he conveys much value in a book.  Maybe someday though.

Quote from Right-To-Work 101
“Recent research from the Economic Policy Institute that controlled for these factors finds that right-to-work laws have not increased employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them”

Quote from “research” done by the Economic Policy Institute titled “What’s Wrong With ‘Right-To-Work’ Chamber’s numbers don’t add up” (pages 5 and 6)
“The impact of right-to-work laws has been debated for decades, and scholars have produced a number of scientifically rigorous studies on the topic.  A recent review of this scholarship finds that, as statistical methods have gotten more sophisticated, and analyst have come closer to holding ‘all other things equal’, right-to-work laws have been shown to have no impact whatsoever in boosting a state’s job growth”

The above quote is end noted and when I followed that end note it lead to another piece from the same author providing more critical analysis of studies done by others, but no actual research of his own on the impacts on employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted right-to-work.  There is a little direct research on Oklahoma, but much like how the original articles was critical of research done by others I immediately had questions about the Economic Policies Institute’s research.

Towards the end of the final research piece it talks a little about the jobs that have left the U.S. over the last decade and went overseas due to more favorable labor markets.  I find it strange that in one breath the authors will argue that domestic labor market differences have no impact, but then immediately give into the notion that international labor market differences do have an impact.  I understand there is the issue of magnitude, and like I said in a previous (and agreement with Mr. Lafer) post I think there are many factors of which only one is labor market policies.  Even the research that I offered up indicated a weak correlation, but yet it did suggest a correlation.

I am certainly not suggesting that right-to-work won’t lower wages and benefits, I actually think it will.  I think that American workers have been paid well, but this has made it very difficult for them to compete in the global economy.  I believe this leaves us with two general schools of thought, adopt protectionist policies and support unionization, or promote the global market philosophy and right-to-work allowing our wages and perhaps our standard to living to suffer a little during these transitional periods while other countries catch up.  There was a day when we could play hardball on trade policies because we were who everyone else wanted to sell to, but we are declining as the world’s biggest market place, and to close our borders with protectionist policies will make it difficult for us to sell things to other countries.  There also have been situations where companies have brought manufacturing back home ( called “homesourcing”) due to challenges of managing a global supply chain.  Boeing’s experience with the Dreamliner is a perfect example of a global supply chain failure.  I also hope that American manufacturing can continue to transition towards higher tech applications.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 08 2012,10:31 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 08 2012,10:20 pm)
QUOTE
I still don't understand why America pays more per capita than any other country on health care, and we are ranked 37 as far as adequate health care. What are the top 36 countries doing that we aren't?

I think that is a good question, perhaps you should find the actual rankings and review the methodology they used to create the rankings, that should tell you what the other countries are doing differently.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 09 2012,12:17 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 08 2012,10:20 pm)
QUOTE
I still don't understand why America pays more per capita than any other country on health care, and we are ranked 37 as far as adequate health care. What are the top 36 countries doing that we aren't?

We didn't have Universal Health Care, Now we will.. :woohoo:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care >

ObamaCare (Universal Health Care) fully starts in 2014..

Much of ObamaCare (Universal Health Care) has already kicked in..

< http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 09 2012,4:34 am
^ and I fear my health coverage will suffer or will cost my family much more. We shall see I guess.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 09 2012,7:34 am
Yeah blahblahblah, I knew the main factor with my question was Universal Health Care lol.
I hate the World Health Org.'s website. Gives me a headache. It is by far one of the most difficult websites I have ever tried to find information on. I'm not sure if they took into account our obesity rate or any other self induced problems we take the lead in as opposed to other countries. Regardless of that, we also have a very high infant mortality rate compared to many other countries.
We do spend an insane amount of money more per capita than any other country for health care though.
Self-Banished, I hope not, and I honestly don't think your health care will suffer or that it will cost your family more. It seems to be working well for the top 36 countries.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 09 2012,9:03 am
blahblahblah quote:
QUOTE
I assume you realize the fact that Exxon paid no income tax in 2009 should sound familiar to you, since I pointed that out to you back in June. You had made the claim that “Exxon has avoided taxation completely in past years” so I looked it up. I then told you that in the last 20 years Exxon avoided taxation in only one year, which was 2009. Then I gave this little tidbit of knowledge some context by gathering data on the 30 companies that were included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The results of this analysis concluded that in the last decade only 11 companies paid taxes every year, the other 19 had at least one year in which they paid no taxes (domestic taxes). At that time GE was the biggest offender having not paid any taxes since 2007. (I believe GE’s lack of taxation is okay because it’s Obama’s handout)

I’ve been paying Tax for forty three years and have yet to see a year where I owe no tax, much less get a refund as some of our largest Corporations have managed. Taxing Corporations is really a catch 22 as they pass those costs on to the consumer so it’s merely another hidden tax on the populace, but at the same time when we see large profits and no tax paid it’s truly frustrating..
As for G.E they’re actually Edison’s company, you missed my past posts on the AC/DC conflict or you’d realize I'm no fan of Edison, it’s rumored G.E. had their fingers in cap-and-trade ,  this carbon trading exchange would have cost utilities, they’d pass that cost to the consumer, G.E. produces both wind-turbines and gas turbines that back the wind farms they’d obviously profit from cap-and-trade..

Cap-and-Trade is about greenhouse gas restrictions so in a way it plays into the global warming theme..On that subject let say me the planet has been through this warming and cooling cycle an undetermined number of times in the past, yes we may be speeding a natural cycle. Will the planet be able to counter balance this increased contribution from man, this time yes but as earths population continues to grow the point will come when this counter balance no longer exists..Mankind has a much better chance of surviving global warming then we do cooling..
I questioned my magic eight ball on the subject, it’s probably more reliable than scientists from the right or left...

QUOTE

I am completely in favor of eliminating all tax loopholes, for both corporations and individuals. Loopholes are awarded by special interest groups and as you point out money is spent on lobbyist to gain favor, and that’s not good. I was actually a bit surprised how small the amount of money spent on lobbyist by Exxon was considering how big of a company they are and how much revenue and profit they generate in absolute terms. For individuals I say we get rid of mortgage interest deductions, education credits, child dependent deductions, our personal deductions, deductions for our vehicle tabs, all of them, every last one. A corporations tax rate should be their profit x applicable tax rate (I am guessing my suggested tax rate would appall you) and an individual’s tax rate should be their income x applicable tax rate. (I am totally fine with a progressive tax schedule). What I am opposed to is completely sensational and unsubstantiated claims about taxes paid by corporations when it’s very easy to look that info up.

I really can’t find anything in this statement I totally disagree with, the mortgage deduction encourages people to get themselves in more debt than they can manage for a tax right-off, I would possibly leave the IRA deduction in place, people have to be encouraged to save for the future, but I see what you’re getting at, a plain and simple tax that everyone must pay..I’m glad to see you believe in a progressive tax schedule..
WE were doing so good until we got to this statement“What I am opposed to is completely sensational and unsubstantiated claims about taxes paid by corporations when it’s very easy to look that info up”...

QUOTE
You have read one more Bill O’Reilly than I have. That guy is also nearly impossible to watch, and I can’t imagine he conveys much value in a book. Maybe someday though.

I have a few right-wing friends who try to convert me, give me these you have to read this book than you’ll understand why I’m a conservative..I  was actually able to read O’Reilly’s book cover to cover, a while back I received one written by Ann Coulter it was a total abstract rant, instant headache couldn’t make the first chapter before I gave up...

QUOTE
I am certainly not suggesting that right-to-work won’t lower wages and benefits, I actually think it will. I think that American workers have been paid well, but this has made it very difficult for them to compete in the global economy. I believe this leaves us with two general schools of thought, adopt protectionist policies and support unionization, or promote the global market philosophy and right-to-work allowing our wages and perhaps our standard to living to suffer a little during these transitional periods while other countries catch up. There was a day when we could play hardball on trade policies because we were who everyone else wanted to sell to, but we are declining as the world’s biggest market place, and to close our borders with protectionist policies will make it difficult for us to sell things to other countries. There also have been situations where companies have brought manufacturing back home ( called “homesourcing”) due to challenges of managing a global supply chain

Albert Lea was once a meat packing town lets look at those wages, in 1983 base wage at Wilson’s was 10.69 this pay was enhanced by a bracket system, one bracket equaling 5 ¢ so lets just say the average hourly pay was 11 dollars Per/H with full medical, dental, a retirement package.. Now lets fast forward better than 29 years those wages and benefits have not only been stagnate these folks are losing ground for the most part. So how far back do these people fall before third world countries catch up or are you implying we should turn America into a third world nation!
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 09 2012,12:47 pm
Rosalind--
QUOTE
I still don't understand why America pays more per capita than any other country on health care, and we are ranked 37 as far as adequate health care. What are the top 36 countries doing that we aren't?
 Gosh, Rosalind--do you suppose it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that we have the most litigious and sue-happy country on the planet? :dunno:

Do you suppose that it might be because we have the most LAWYERS per capita of any country on the planet? :dunno:

Do you suppose that it might be because we have the most DRUG MANUFACTURERS on the planet? :dunno:

Do you suppose that it might be because our Federal Bureaucracy makes it so DIFFICULT and EXPENSIVE to certify new drugs? :dunno:

Do you suppose that it MIGHT be because the U.S. starting next month will move from SECOND to the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE OF ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET? :dunno:

We've done it to ourselves.  Put these same number of lawyers, the same regulations, and the same regulatory burden on any of those OTHER 36 countries (including CAnada right next door) and see how the ranking changes.

Rather than fix the real problem, the Obamunists want us to be like the Euroweenies with universal coverage--but the Euroweenies don't have the built-in expenses that WE do. :dunce:
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 09 2012,2:38 pm

(alcitizens @ Mar. 08 2012,12:34 am)
QUOTE
A minority of Catholics don't agree with birth control being part of health insurance coverage.. So it shouldn't be allowed for anyone? Just don't use that part of the coverage if it is such a problem.    

Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid.. They just don't get blood transfusions..

Radical Republican Right-Wingers are nothing but frikin idiots.. :dunce:

now really alcitizen, who is the idiot?
no one is trying to stop anyone from taking birth control as a recreational drug of choice...its their choice do to their body as they choose...just dont force the payment for this activity onto the churches!
Posted by grassman on Mar. 09 2012,4:23 pm

(jimhanson @ Mar. 09 2012,12:47 pm)
QUOTE
Rosalind--
QUOTE
I still don't understand why America pays more per capita than any other country on health care, and we are ranked 37 as far as adequate health care. What are the top 36 countries doing that we aren't?
 

Do you suppose that it might be because we have the most DRUG MANUFACTURERS on the planet? :dunno:

Do you suppose that it might be because our Federal Bureaucracy makes it so DIFFICULT and EXPENSIVE to certify new drugs? :dunno:

First of all, you would think having all of these drug manufacturers that you mention, the cost should go down right? Supply and demand thingy. :p
Second, with all of these supposed extra hoops that the FDA push on the manufacturers, why do we still have so many recalls?Things do not add up. What's up? :D



The 5 Most Dangerous Recalled Drugs


By Dr. William Campbell Douglass on 04/09/2009

Just because these drugs haven't been pulled off the market yet doesn't make them safe. After all, there are plenty of drugs out there that have quietly "gone away" after years of wreaking havoc on unsuspecting people. And while major drugs being pulled from the market are worthy of lead stories on the 11 o'clock news, too often the stories about "minor" drugs that get pulled are tucked away in places where they're easy to miss.

Here's a list of a few of the most dangerous drugs pulled off the market over the past few years.

1. Vioxx - I'm sure you're familiar with this infamous anti-inflammatory. Merck had to pull Vioxx off the global market in 2004 after a clinical study demonstrated that it significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular "events" such as heart attacks and strokes.

2. Bextra - Like Vioxx, this prescription painkiller caused an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Pfizer pulled it off the market in the U.S. a year after the Vioxx fiasco in 2005.

3. Cylert - Abbott pulled the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drug off the U.S. market in 2005 after the FDA discovered 13 cases of liver failure. Turns out that Cylert patients have as much as a 25 percent higher rate of liver failure compared to the general population.

4. Baycol - This cholesterol-lowering drug caused users to suffer from a much higher rate of rhabdomyolysis, a debilitating muscle ailment that can be fatal. There were 31 reported deaths that were directly linked to Baycol, and it was yanked off the market in the U.S. in 2001.

5. Palladone - This slow-release narcotic painkiller by Purdue Pharma was pulled off the market in the U.S. in 2005 because it was found to cause side effects like depression and even coma when mixed with alcohol.

FDA to post drugs with "potential safety issues" on website

The FDA has finally begun to post on its website a list of all the drugs that it is evaluating for potential safety issues. "If a drug appears on a quarterly report, it means we have begun analysis to determine whether it's a safety problem that requires further evaluation," said the FDA's director of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Dr. Gerald Dal Pan.

While the list will name the drug and the potential problems that are associated with it, it will stop short of giving critical details. The list will NOT mention the extent of the potential safety issue, nor will it reveal how many reports of adverse reactions have been filed.

But I suppose it's better than nothing. If you want to check out the drugs currently on the outdated list that may or may not be updated in the future, go to < http://www.fda.gov/cder..._2008Q3 >

An excerpt from
The Medical Malpractice Myth
Tom Baker
Medical malpractice premiums are skyrocketing. “Closed” signs are sprouting on health clinic doors. Doctors are leaving the field of medicine, and those who remain are practicing in fear and silence. Pregnant women cannot find obstetricians. Billions of dollars are wasted on defensive medicine. And angry doctors are marching on state capitols across the country.

All this is because medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat. Juries award eye-popping sums to undeserving claimants, leaving doctors, hospitals, and their insurance companies no choice but to pay huge ransoms for release from the clutches of the so-called “civil justice” system. Medical malpractice litigation is a sick joke, a roulette game rigged so that plaintiffs and their lawyers’ numbers come up all too often, and doctors and the honest people who pay in the end always lose.

This is the medical malpractice myth.

Built on a foundation of urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies, and repeated so often that even the mythmakers forget the exaggeration, half truth, and outright misinformation employed in the service of their greater good, the medical malpractice myth has filled doctors, patients, legislators, and voters with the kind of fear that short circuits critical thinking.

This fear has inspired legislative action on a nationwide scale three times in my lifetime. The first time was back in the mid-1970s. I remember sitting at the dinner table listening to my father report what he’d heard at his medical society meeting: “Medical malpractice insurance premiums are going through the roof. Frivolous litigation and runaway juries will drive doctors out of the profession.” The answer, the medical societies and their insurance companies said, was medical malpractice tort reform—to make it harder for misguided patients and their lawyers to sue.

What the medical societies did not tell my father, or almost anyone else, was that their own research showed that the real problem was too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. In the mid-1970s the California Hospital and Medical Associations sponsored a study on medical malpractice that they expected would support their tort reform efforts. But, to their surprise and dismay, the study showed that medical malpractice injured tens of thousands of people every year—more than automobile and workplace accidents. The study also showed that, despite the rhetoric, most of the victims did not sue. But almost nobody heard about the study because the associations decided that these facts conflicted with their tort reform message.

Two years after they achieved their goal of enacting restrictive medical malpractice tort reform in California, the associations printed the results of the study, but only as an association report. All that was published for outside consumption was a technical summary, which did not feature the dramatic findings. The report was not widely distributed, and it was written in exceptionally dry and technical language.

The next time I heard about frivolous litigation and runaway juries driving doctors out of practice was while I was in law school in the mid-1980s. Medical malpractice premiums were back through the roof. And, once again, the answer from the medical societies and their insurance companies was tort reform: raise the bar on getting into the courthouse and, in many states, limit what juries could do once victims got inside.

That time, more people were skeptical about the claims of the medical societies. But this was the 1980s, and organized medicine still knew best. Nobody had pulled together enough facts about medical malpractice litigation. And hardly anyone knew about, or could have easily understood, that buried California report. The result was a virtual avalanche of restrictive tort reform legislation proposed—and often enacted—in legislatures across the county.

The third time began in 2002 and continues today. This time around we have a lot more information. But you would not know it from the tort reform remedies that the medical societies, the hospitals, and their insurance companies are pushing.

What do we know?

First, we know from the California study, as confirmed by more recent, better publicized studies, that the real problem is too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. Most people do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice.

Second, because of those same studies, we know that the real costs of medical malpractice have little to do with litigation. The real costs of medical malpractice are the lost lives, extra medical expenses, time out of work, and pain and suffering of tens of thousands of people every year, the vast majority of whom do not sue. There is lots of talk about the heavy burden that “defensive medicine” imposes on health costs, but the research shows this is not true.

Third, we know that medical malpractice insurance premiums are cyclical, and that it is not frivolous litigation or runaway juries that drive that cycle. The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment.

Fourth, we know that “undeserving” people sometimes bring medical malpractice claims because they do not know that the claims lack merit and because they cannot find out what happened to them (or their loved ones) without making a claim. Most undeserving claims disappear before trial; most trials end in a verdict for the doctor; doctors almost never pay claims out of their own pockets; and hospitals and insurance companies refuse to pay claims unless there is good evidence of malpractice. If a hospital or insurance company does settle a questionable claim to avoid a huge risk, there is a very large discount. This means that big payments to undeserving claimants are the very rare exception, not the rule.

Finally, we know that there is one sure thing—and only one thing—that the proposed remedies can be counted on to do. They can be counted on to distract attention long enough for the inevitable turn in the insurance cycle to take the edge off the doctors’ pain. That way, people can keep ignoring the real, public health problem. Injured patients and their lawyers are the messengers here, not the cause of the medical malpractice problem.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 09 2012,5:50 pm

(alcitizens @ Mar. 08 2012,12:34 am)
QUOTE
A minority of Catholics don't agree with birth control being part of health insurance coverage.. So it shouldn't be allowed for anyone? Just don't use that part of the coverage if it is such a problem.    

Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid.. They just don't get blood transfusions..

Radical Republican Right-Wingers are nothing but frikin idiots.. :dunce:

alcitizens, you need to realize that our country is made of more than just liberals with no moral anchor, and as such, that freedoms apply only to them.
obamacare and forced contraception coverage makes it functionally impossible to be a Roman Catholic AND an American.  It prohibits the free-exercise of Catholicism.
Period.
Forcing Catholics to subsidize contraception is like forcing Muslims to eat pork every day.  This is why the verbiage in the obamacare act was inserted to give Muslims a way [out]!  This verbiage was so orchestrated even Pelosi was confused ultimately saying, Just pass it, read it later.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2012,6:18 pm
QUOTE

Forcing Catholics to subsidize contraception is like forcing Muslims to eat pork every day.  

But it's okay to make a Jehovah's Witness subsidize blood transfusions?
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 09 2012,7:46 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 09 2012,6:18 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Forcing Catholics to subsidize contraception is like forcing Muslims to eat pork every day.  

But it's okay to make a Jehovah's Witness subsidize blood transfusions?

I don't really have much of a position on this but I am curious.  You keep bringing up this Jehovah's Witness subsidizing blood transfusions issue.  What exactly do you mean by subsidizing?  I think the distinction that is being made about Catholics is that as a Church they provide benefits to their employees (they are the insurance company).  Do the Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing, and were they forced to cover blood transfusions?  If as a Church they are going out into the market and hiring a 3rd party to provide benefits that is different than making the Catholic Church (which I assume is self insuring it's employees) provide a certain kind of coverage.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2012,8:07 pm
Do you think that only the Catholic church has employees? Why would the Jehovah's witness church be any different?
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 09 2012,8:40 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 09 2012,9:03 am)
QUOTE
I’ve been paying Tax for forty three years and have yet to see a year where I owe no tax, much less get a refund as some of our largest Corporations have managed. Taxing Corporations is really a catch 22 as they pass those costs on to the consumer so it’s merely another hidden tax on the populace, but at the same time when we see large profits and no tax paid it’s truly frustrating..
As for G.E they’re actually Edison’s company, you missed my past posts on the AC/DC conflict or you’d realize I'm no fan of Edison, it’s rumored G.E. had their fingers in cap-and-trade ,  this carbon trading exchange would have cost utilities, they’d pass that cost to the consumer, G.E. produces both wind-turbines and gas turbines that back the wind farms they’d obviously profit from cap-and-trade..

Cap-and-Trade is about greenhouse gas restrictions so in a way it plays into the global warming theme..On that subject let say me the planet has been through this warming and cooling cycle an undetermined number of times in the past, yes we may be speeding a natural cycle. Will the planet be able to counter balance this increased contribution from man, this time yes but as earths population continues to grow the point will come when this counter balance no longer exists..Mankind has a much better chance of surviving global warming then we do cooling..
I questioned my magic eight ball on the subject, it’s probably more reliable than scientists from the right or left...


Remember that corporations pay taxes on profits so in a year where a corporation has a loss, it won't pay taxes, clearly the situation where a company turns a profit and receives money from the IRS is the most frustrating.  Some of that is subsidies and government incentives and sometimes its deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax credits.  Regardless an easier system would be much better.  While you have paid taxes every, there are plenty of U.S. tax "payers" that pay no taxes and receive money back.  I actually think corporate tax rates could be really low or non-existent, the reason being that profit is supposed to be distributed to shareholders or employees (if we consider profits before wages are paid) so if the government taxes these two parties there is no need to tax a corporation...the corporation is merely a conduit for wealth transfer.  Where this idea really falls apart is when corporate resources or used for personal reasons, or corporate profit is used for political action, in those cases taxes would need to be paid.  I think something like this is business friendly, and makes the hidden tax you pointed out more visable.  This is a realitively new idea that I have been pondering so I am sure there are all kinds of issues I am not considering.

(Expatriate @ Mar. 09 2012,9:03 am)
QUOTE

I really can’t find anything in this statement I totally disagree with, the mortgage deduction encourages people to get themselves in more debt than they can manage for a tax right-off, I would possibly leave the IRA deduction in place, people have to be encouraged to save for the future, but I see what you’re getting at, a plain and simple tax that everyone must pay..I’m glad to see you believe in a progressive tax schedule..
WE were doing so good until we got to this statement“What I am opposed to is completely sensational and unsubstantiated claims about taxes paid by corporations when it’s very easy to look that info up”...


I know some people like the flat tax, perhaps if you were starting from scratch it would work, but it's completely impractical.  With half of the population not currently paying taxes and probably in no position to start paying taxes its politically impossible to implement.  And I really have no issue with the person making $200,000 paying more than the person making $25,000 (as a percent of their income).  The progressive tax schedule of course would have to be reasonable.  I agree that last statement you highlighted in blue was completely unnecessary, I actually try not to be snarky in my posts because I want peoples reactions to the content of the post and not their reaction to an inflammatory statement, clearly I sometimes fail at this.

QUOTE

I have a few right-wing friends who try to convert me, give me these you have to read this book than you’ll understand why I’m a conservative..I  was actually able to read O’Reilly’s book cover to cover, a while back I received one written by Ann Coulter it was a total abstract rant, instant headache couldn’t make the first chapter before I gave up...


Your friends clearly do not value your time  :)

I dislike Ann Coulter as well, and I believe that Rush is one of the most hateful people I have ever listened to.  All these pundits are so extreme.  My theory is that they have to be extreme because those are the people who will listen and that is how they build an audiance, average people with moderate views are too busy with better things to do so they can't tune in night after night.  Ed Shultz has moved from the middle to left as he has tried to go from local radio, to national radio, to television.  Glenn Beck actually used to be somewhat reasonable when he was only on radio, back before his run at Fox TV, no he is completely off the deep end.

QUOTE

Albert Lea was once a meat packing town lets look at those wages, in 1983 base wage at Wilson’s was 10.69 this pay was enhanced by a bracket system, one bracket equaling 5 ¢ so lets just say the average hourly pay was 11 dollars Per/H with full medical, dental, a retirement package.. Now lets fast forward better than 29 years those wages and benefits have not only been stagnate these folks are losing ground for the most part. So how far back do these people fall before third world countries catch up or are you implying we should turn America into a third world nation!


I don't know, I am sure plenty of people would tell you that we are allowing the third world to come to us anyway.  Wilson's ultimately failed as a business, came back under different ownership a few times, and then finally had an "accidental" mercy fire to put it out of its misery.  Did the union play a role in the failure of Wilson's?  This is very anecdotal, but I think unions have over played their hands and been a little too unwilling to give any ground.

It's clear that we have different beliefs on this and I suppose we will just have to see how everything turns out.  I really think the manufacturing sector is in a position where they are deciding if they want the 100 jobs at $20/hour or the 200 jobs at $10/hour  I believe that the global markets benefits us all, but I am also pleased by the "homesourcing" trend and hope it continues.  And again if we innovate and do higher end, perhaps more time sensitive manufacturing (that would pay higher) that would be great too.  Unions could in fact play important roles in changes for the future, but I think they need to change their playbook in order to do that.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 09 2012,8:47 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 09 2012,8:07 pm)
QUOTE
Do you think that only the Catholic church has employees? Why would the Jehovah's witness church be any different?

Size of the church, resources available to the church, decisions about the level of risk a church or organization is willing to take on.  In the corporate world some businesses self-insure, some bring in a plan like Blue Cross Blue Shield.  That is why they could be different.  Since I am asking I clearly don't know about the Jehovah's Witness's plan, I was wondering if you knew their situation and knew that they self-insured and were forced to cover stuff against their beliefs.  I am beginning to suspect this is a classic "straw man" argument on your behalf.

So...back to my original question...
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 09 2012,9:31 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 09 2012,7:34 am)
QUOTE
Yeah blahblahblah, I knew the main factor with my question was Universal Health Care lol.
I hate the World Health Org.'s website. Gives me a headache. It is by far one of the most difficult websites I have ever tried to find information on. I'm not sure if they took into account our obesity rate or any other self induced problems we take the lead in as opposed to other countries. Regardless of that, we also have a very high infant mortality rate compared to many other countries.
We do spend an insane amount of money more per capita than any other country for health care though.
Self-Banished, I hope not, and I honestly don't think your health care will suffer or that it will cost your family more. It seems to be working well for the top 36 countries.

Here you go Rosalind, it's 215 pages so that should keep you busy.  It's also practically a teenager (report is from 2000) so don't let the report get lippy with you.

< World Health Report 2000 >

As you mentioned as well, a big problem for the U.S. is lack of universal health care.  In the little bit that I read it seems like coverage for everyone is a big deal for the WHO and if they are putting together the ranking, the U.S. will be dinged for that.  I think the reader of this analysis needs to consider the factors that the ranking is based on and the importance of those factors to themselves.

I also agree, not a great website for finding things.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 09 2012,11:56 pm

(jimhanson @ Mar. 08 2012,6:49 pm)
QUOTE
the Obamacare REQUIREMENT--is that they have to PAY for something they not only don't believe in, but goes against their religion.  That's insult to injury.

QUOTE
Jehovah Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions, so it shouldn't be allowed in health insurance coverage for anyone? They don't say it is against their religion and not accept health insurance coverage, that would be stupid.. They just don't get blood transfusions..
 That's the problem with Obamacare--there is no "opt-out" (unless you are one of the thousands of companies, states, or unions that get a special waiver from the government).

And yet repubs don't seem to mind when Catholic hierarchy objects to the wars or the death penalty.  Catholics have to PAY for those, how come they can't opt out of paying taxes since they object to the government doing those things?

It seems conservatives only care about what the Catholic hierarchy thinks when it comes to women's health issues.  They've been fighting against contraceptive access for a long time, much earlier than the Council of Bishops brought this us.

Again, this is about the Catholic heirarchy, Catholic laypeople, as well as many Priests are often quite liberal.  If you don't believe me, look at polling data for both elections and approval ratings:  Catholics typically vote democrat, and recent polling indicates Catholics give better approval ratings of Obama than Americans in aggregate.  < Gallup, February 2012 >

One of my favorite authors on Catholicism is Father Andrew Greeley, he's a very outspoken liberal as well as being a Professor of Sociology.  < Father Andrew Greeley >  Being an expert in Sociology and a Priest made the book The Catholic Myth interesting since he did a lot of research on Catholics, like himself, that disagree with the Bishops and the Pope.

Catholics < Voted for Obama 53% in 2008 (compared to 47% for McCain), > which isn't far off from < results in the 2006 election, a majority identified as Catholics > 55% to a mere 44% who said republican.  This despite republicans strong stance on moral issues, that may sound good to evangelicals, but not to most Catholics.

But no, republicans will continue to quote the Bishops and ignore mainstream Catholics.  Even Santorum who touts his Catholic background when talking about birth control or abortion, but seems to forget the church teaching when he's asked about the death penalty or the war.   ???

QUOTE
The U.S. has ALWAYS had an ability to opt out for conscientious objectors--even in time of war.


< No, they haven't. >.  And I notice you never seem to have any proof of these things you claim lately...  

Currently it's more expanded than previously, but the idea that you can just "opt out" of anything is bizarre.  Here's the current Army regulations on the subject < Army Regulation 600-43:  Conscientious Objection >  There's a lot of reasons it can be denied, such is if they believe the objection is "insincere" or if it's just an objection to a certain war.  And if it IS approved, they'll send you to boot camp and you can do a different service, like medical training for the military.

QUOTE
How bad does a program have to be when you have to use the full force of the Federal government to FORCE people to buy something?


What about religions who object to all kinds of other medical services.  They can't opt out of insurance covering them for other people.  Tom Cruise can't tell his insurance company that they can't cover psychiatric services just because he doesn't believe in it.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2012,11:58 pm
QUOTE

Size of the church, resources available to the church, decisions about the level of risk a church or organization is willing to take on.  In the corporate world some businesses self-insure, some bring in a plan like Blue Cross Blue Shield.  That is why they could be different.

What does the size of the church have to do with their beliefs? Even if they used something like Blue Cross the church would be paying for part of the employees insurance premium.

Here's a pretty good explanation by another person using the straw man.
< http://www.newsherald.com/articles/church-100609-health-people.html >
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 10 2012,12:46 am

(Santorini @ Mar. 09 2012,5:50 pm)
QUOTE
obamacare and forced contraception coverage makes it functionally impossible to be a Roman Catholic AND an American.  It prohibits the free-exercise of Catholicism.
Period.

Have you ever heard of a Catholic renouncing their citizenship over this?  I haven't either, next...

I think you're speaking from the Rush fan part of your brain, not the Catholic part.  You can be a Catholic and an American without agreeing with everything the government or insurance companies do or cover.  I've known a lot of Catholics who are against many things the government does, as a personal and religious issue, I have not known a single one who says they're not an American because of it.  

You can be the first, if you want.  There are ways to renounce your citizenship.  If not, I'll take it that you didn't mean what I quoted, and you were exaggerating to the point of absurdity.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 10 2012,12:46 am
Jim-
QUOTE
do you suppose it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that we have the most litigious and sue-happy country on the planet?


"Oh no, the burden on the poor Doctors!"  Yes, we're more litigious than many countries, but conservatives never tell you that that cost amounts to less than one percent.  Even the reforms against litigation don't amount to ANY decrease in health care costs, those red states with tough malpractice reform laws and caps see their costs climb just as much (sometimes more) than blue states.

There are ways you can search to find out how many times a doc has been sued, and regardless of what the media and conservatives claim, it's quite seldom.  But if you ask a guy making half a millionaire a year why health care costs are so high, I'm betting he's not going to tell you it's because he's got several Mercedes and after your surgery he's buying another.  Nope, it's the damn lawyers!   :dunce:

There are lawsuits, I've done a fair amount of research on it.  But if a surgeon leaves a sponge in you or cuts of the wrong limb, I really doubt you're going to just say "accidents happen" and go on your way.

QUOTE
Do you suppose that it might be because we have the most DRUG MANUFACTURERS on the planet?


Grassman beat me to it.  If we have the most here, making it here, it should be cheapest here.  Other countries are far stricter on what the drug manufacturers and hospitals can charge, not us.  The AMA and pharmaceutical industries have far more power than consumers ever will.  As the golden rule says, "He who has the gold, makes the rules".

QUOTE
Do you suppose that it MIGHT be because the U.S. starting next month will move from SECOND to the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE OF ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET?


They pay the effective tax rate, not the one the GOP talks about.  And most of our local hospitals don't pay corporate tax at all, because they're non-profit.  Even the pharmaceutical industry at most is going to pay tax rates in the 20's because they can lower it in many ways.

Corporate tax rates are high on some corporations, but how do you think it is that many of our biggest corporations don't even pay taxes?  It's because the United States is the most relaxed industrialized nation on ways to lower that tax liability: LIFO (last in, first out), exceptions, credits, and sending money overseas before receiving it back.

Besides that, some corporate laws, like S Corp do not pay corporate tax regardless.  They're taxes on income of owners after expenses.  Now, that's perfect because they can use corporate funds to buy cars, cruises, and other executive perks and call them "expenses" before they even do the accounting of what their earnings are.  Is that fun?  I bet the guy on the forklift can't do that.   :D
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2012,10:31 am
Grassman--
QUOTE
First of all, you would think having all of these drug manufacturers that you mention, the cost should go down right? Supply and demand thingy.  
Second, with all of these supposed extra hoops that the FDA push on the manufacturers, why do we still have so many recalls?Things do not add up. What's up?


Good points.

Yes, the manufacuterers and drug development are located here.  On the other hand, the cost of drugs is NOT in the manufacture--but in the FDA certification.

A few years ago, libbies like Franken and Hillary would make political hay by encouraging people to "go to Canada to buy drugs."  The Canadians didn't develop  those drugs--they were either manufactured here and shipped to Canada--or made in Canada.  The big cost to the drug companies was the "SUNKEN" costs of developing and certifying those drugs in the US.  That is the big cost--not the chemicals used to make the drug.

Another example:--Many people go to Mexico, either for their version of our certificated drugs (they don't have the certification costs we do in the U.S.) or for the latest drugs (not certified in the U.S. by the FDA).  FDA says they are "protecting" us--AGAINST WHAT?  If you already have a terminal illness, what is the DOWNSIDE to taking the new drugs? :dunno:

It is a horrible indictment of our government that you have to go to a third-world country in order to buy the latest drugs! :p

QUOTE
Second, with all of these supposed extra hoops that the FDA push on the manufacturers, why do we still have so many recalls?Things do not add up. What's up?
 WHAT?  THE GOVERNMENT SCREWED UP?  I'M SHOCKED!  SHOCKED, I SAY! :sarcasm:  :laugh:
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2012,10:54 am
Jim
QUOTE
do you suppose it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that we have the most litigious and sue-happy country on the planet?


Irish--
QUOTE
"Oh no, the burden on the poor Doctors!"  Yes, we're more litigious than many countries, but conservatives never tell you that that cost amounts to less than one percent.


You say I don't give sources for the quotes, but Libbie doesn't LIKE my sources.  Which one is it? :D

What's the source for your 1%?  Here's what I find from E-HOW nullnullnull< My Webpage >

QUOTE

Average Cost States
Pennsylvania malpractice insurance falls in the middle with respect to average cost. Rates differ between the major insurers due to demographic and claims differences. In 2009, base rates for general surgery could be as low as $28,000 annually or as high as $50,000. Internal medicine malpractice insurance costs varied between around $6,000 to $11,000. Obstetricians/gynecologists could find themselves paying up to $64,000 or more for coverage.

High Cost States
While Nevada malpractice insurance rates are between middle to high in comparison with all other states, doctors of many types in Nevada--including general internists, pediatricians and general practice doctors--earn a higher average salary than doctors in any other state. In 2009, one of the highest rates of insurance in Nevada is for OB/GYNs, who may pay between $85,000 for malpractice liability insurance per year up to $142,000 per year for a premium plan by a prominent insurance company. Although the average annual salary for such doctors was around $180,000 in 2009, malpractice insurance can still be a huge financial burden.

Florida has some of the highest rates of liability insurance. Moreover, the deviation between low and high averages varies in Florida more widely than in almost any other state. For instance, a doctor in internal medicine in Florida could expect to pay in excess of $56,000 per year for insurance as of 2009, in contrast with Minnesota's $4,000. General surgeons paid in between $90,000 per year and $175,000 per year or more. OB/GYNs once again could expect the highest rates, with liability coverage ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per year.





In the 2009 example above, the average salary was $180,000 for the doctor, and insurance of $142,000--a good share of the salary.

(where are those  "half-million dollar salaries" and "multiple Mercedes"--you wouldn't be playing the libbie class warfare card, would you?) :p

WHO do you think pays that $142,000 insurance premium?  Would you think it MIGHT have something to do with the high cost of health care?   :sarcasm:

Do you think that the other 36 countries that rank higher in Rosalinds survey have doctors that pay those rates?

Do you think those rates are as high as they are BECAUSE we have more lawyers per capita than any other country? :p

Here's another point you missed.  You focused only on the doctors.

How about the CLINICS--they also pay huge insurance costs.

How about the DRUG MANUFACTURERS--they also pay huge insurance costs.

How about the huge cost of "defensive medicine"--we give far more tests and procedures today than ever before (many not necessary), simply to insulate physicians and clinics agains sue-happy lawyers that ask "Did you do everything you could for the plaintiff"?

Rosalind extolls the virtues of "36 countries that rank higher than the U.S."--but she doesn't GO to those vaunted countries for medical care. :dunno:
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 10 2012,11:07 am

(irisheyes @ Mar. 10 2012,12:46 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Mar. 09 2012,5:50 pm)
QUOTE
obamacare and forced contraception coverage makes it functionally impossible to be a Roman Catholic AND an American.  It prohibits the free-exercise of Catholicism.
Period.

Have you ever heard of a Catholic renouncing their citizenship over this?  I haven't either, next...

I think you're speaking from the Rush fan part of your brain, not the Catholic part.  You can be a Catholic and an American without agreeing with everything the government or insurance companies do or cover.  I've known a lot of Catholics who are against many things the government does, as a personal and religious issue, I have not known a single one who says they're not an American because of it.  

You can be the first, if you want.  There are ways to renounce your citizenship.  If not, I'll take it that you didn't mean what I quoted, and you were exaggerating to the point of absurdity.

A little slow are we irisheyes :violin:
As you personally are aware most Catholics are pathetic in their knowledge of the Church and what it teaches!
You people are all about defending personal rights and choice, and at the same time stand in defense of policies that infringe and place limits on them  :crazy:

[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...]
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 10 2012,11:39 am

(Santorini @ Mar. 10 2012,11:07 am)
QUOTE
A little slow are we irisheyes :violin:
As you personally are aware most Catholics are pathetic in their knowledge of the Church and what it teaches!
You people are all about defending personal rights and choice, and at the same time stand in defense of policies that infringe and place limits on them  :crazy:

[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...]

So now that I've proven you're in the minority of Catholics who agree with Rush you switch and now attack Catholics?  Sounds like this is more a Church of Rush thing for you.

You say most Catholics are pathetic, I can't disagree with you more.  They know the Bishops view on contraceptives, but they disagree and have a mind of their own.  When you listen to AM Radio or the Pope, you CAN actually think and form your own opinions.  There's nothing pathetic about that.

As for the Bill of Rights, I'm very familiar with it.  But the 1st Amendment doesn't say you can decide what other people can do with their bodies or what their insurance will cover.  If you're in the minority of Catholics who agree with Rush and the Bishops, then don't use contraceptives.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 10 2012,11:42 am

(Liberal @ Mar. 09 2012,11:58 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Size of the church, resources available to the church, decisions about the level of risk a church or organization is willing to take on.  In the corporate world some businesses self-insure, some bring in a plan like Blue Cross Blue Shield.  That is why they could be different.

What does the size of the church have to do with their beliefs? Even if they used something like Blue Cross the church would be paying for part of the employees insurance premium.

Here's a pretty good explanation by another person using the straw man.
< http://www.newsherald.com/articles/church-100609-health-people.html >

The size of the church has nothing to do with their religous beliefs.  Size has to do with the number of employees they would need to insure if they were a self-insurer like the Catholic church.  If a church only has six employees, then self-insuring would be extremely risky because that is not a large enough risk pool.  Size also has to do with amount of money the church is willing to risk.  In order to self-insure you need to have assets to cover medical claims.  If a small church is unwilling or unable to self insure, yet wants to provide insurance coverage they will have to go into the market and purchase the coverage.  They will have to pick from the coverages available because again, they are unwilling  or unable to self-insure.  This little distinction between organizations self-insuring and organizations purchasing a product from a variety of product offerings is what I believe an earlier poster was trying to point out.  I also believe that Bryan Kelly (author of the letter to the editor in the link you provided) has failed to understand this distinction as well.  Or, perhaps has a good reason why the distinction does not matter that I am just not understanding.  I think the bottom line is that you borrowed the bit about Jahoveh's Witness from someone elses letter to an editor and are not a real good source for answering follow up questions about their position.

Now, if new healthcare legislation forces a church to buy insurance then I agree, they have the same argument as the Catholic church, I however do not believe that is the case....yet.

For the record, I am a big fan of birth control.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 10 2012,1:11 pm

(blahblahblah @ Mar. 09 2012,9:31 pm)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 09 2012,7:34 am)
QUOTE
Yeah blahblahblah, I knew the main factor with my question was Universal Health Care lol.
I hate the World Health Org.'s website. Gives me a headache. It is by far one of the most difficult websites I have ever tried to find information on. I'm not sure if they took into account our obesity rate or any other self induced problems we take the lead in as opposed to other countries. Regardless of that, we also have a very high infant mortality rate compared to many other countries.
We do spend an insane amount of money more per capita than any other country for health care though.
Self-Banished, I hope not, and I honestly don't think your health care will suffer or that it will cost your family more. It seems to be working well for the top 36 countries.

Here you go Rosalind, it's 215 pages so that should keep you busy.  It's also practically a teenager (report is from 2000) so don't let the report get lippy with you.

< World Health Report 2000 >

As you mentioned as well, a big problem for the U.S. is lack of universal health care.  In the little bit that I read it seems like coverage for everyone is a big deal for the WHO and if they are putting together the ranking, the U.S. will be dinged for that.  I think the reader of this analysis needs to consider the factors that the ranking is based on and the importance of those factors to themselves.

I also agree, not a great website for finding things.

Rosalind, This discussion has been on the forum in the past.
It is so frustrating that people repeat statistical results without all the facts!  
Example is your statement that US infant mortality rate is higher than many other countries.  Do some fact checking before using that one as a defense for the universal healthcare mandate.
In compiling info. for comparative date on infant mortality, you need to know the US counts ALL live births in our mortality count.  Not all countries do.
Each country submits their own statistics therefore each country gets to decide what the criteria is.
Many countrys misclassify live births as still born.  Still there are many countrys where births are still not recorded therefore not counted.  The criteria in many countrys is if an infant is born below a certain wgt. or length at birth they are considered high risk and not counted at all.   Some countries do not consider an infant live until it has lived 30 days and those are not included.  The US counts ALL live births even if there has been only 1 breath.  Further, the US is the leader in specialized care and treatment for at risk infants.
So those statistics ranking the US as higher than many other countries are neither factual, and only shows not all countries are held to the same standard.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 10 2012,1:47 pm

(irisheyes @ Mar. 10 2012,11:39 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Mar. 10 2012,11:07 am)
QUOTE
A little slow are we irisheyes :violin:
As you personally are aware most Catholics are pathetic in their knowledge of the Church and what it teaches!
You people are all about defending personal rights and choice, and at the same time stand in defense of policies that infringe and place limits on them  :crazy:

[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...]

So now that I've proven you're in the minority of Catholics who agree with Rush you switch and now attack Catholics?  Sounds like this is more a Church of Rush thing for you.

You say most Catholics are pathetic, I can't disagree with you more.  They know the Bishops view on contraceptives, but they disagree and have a mind of their own.  When you listen to AM Radio or the Pope, you CAN actually think and form your own opinions.  There's nothing pathetic about that.

As for the Bill of Rights, I'm very familiar with it.  But the 1st Amendment doesn't say you can decide what other people can do with their bodies or what their insurance will cover.  If you're in the minority of Catholics who agree with Rush and the Bishops, then don't use contraceptives.

Since you are so familiar with the Bill of Rights...then you are aware there is nothing in the Bill of Rights stating anyone even has a RIGHT to insurance or healthcare!  
You dont think I was attacking you, do you :angel:  No, just pointing out the obvious...you are a Catholic who lost his moral anchor.  I will keep praying for you!  See the thing is, and you know it, just because something triggers your fancy doesnt make it acceptable.  In life as well as with religion, there are guides/ rules to follow. It is very difficult to resist tempatations and hold on to the foundation when the socially acceptable thing to do is to cave into the lastest fad.  
One question Irish Eyes, you keep referring the majority of Catholics, minority of Catholics...just curious where these stats come from?  (Georgetown :rofl:  :rofl: )
I have never been surveyed, I dont know anyone that has been surveyed, I dont know anyone that knows anyone that has been surveyed...makes ya wonder about stats!!!
Posted by grassman on Mar. 10 2012,9:44 pm
If you are so strong on our Constitution and Bill Of Rights, how do you feel about having a standing, and professional military? :dunno:
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 10 2012,10:44 pm
Sorry, the "quoting" below is a little messed up.


(Santorini-->

(grassman+Mar. 10 2012 @ 9:44 pm-->

(Santorini)
QUOTE

Since you are so familiar with the Bill of Rights...then you are aware there is nothing in the Bill of Rights stating anyone even has a RIGHT to insurance or healthcare!


In the preamble to the constitution it states "promote the general welfare".  I have wondered if this goes a small ways towards establishing the basis for a right to universal healthcare.

[quote=grassman @ Mar. 10 2012,9:44 pm)
QUOTE
If you are so strong on our Constitution and Bill Of Rights, how do you feel about having a standing, and professional military? :dunno:

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To me this implies that the United States would have a standing professional army, otherwise the first half of this amendment is completely unnecessary.  If we are not suppose to have a standing army during a time of peace there would be no need to worry about the army being quartered in a house against consent.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Mar. 10 2012,11:54 pm
QUOTE
In the preamble to the constitution it states "promote the general welfare".  I have wondered if this goes a small ways towards establishing the basis for a right to universal healthcare.


The preamble itself is not Constitutional law, it merely states that the preamble states the fundamental purposes, principles, and goals of the government established by the Constitution.

Its purpose is to generally define the reasons behind the Constitution, establish what justifies a government, and explain how its citizens have come to create one.

Article I, section 8, grants the Congress only 18 powers. Nothing for education, or retirement security, or health care: Those responsibilities were left to the states or to the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear.
The general welfare clause was never meant to be interpreted as it has been since 1937.  The clause only granted congress the power to tax in limited ways. The terms “common Defense” and “general Welfare” were meant merely as general headings under which the 17 other specific powers or ends were subsumed.  

In Federalist #41 James Madison said
QUOTE
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?


What was the point of enumerating the 17 other powers if Congress could do anything it wanted under this single power? The Framers could have stopped right there. They didn’t because they meant for Congress to have only certain limited powers, each one enumerated in Article I, section 8. And taxing for the general welfare limited Congress even further by precluding it from providing for special parties or interests.

As you can see, through judicial activism at the behest of that POS FDR the United States congress use to conduct its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States, and all of that changed in 1937, and turned the Constitution on its head.

So NO the general welfare clause was NEVER meant to mean as a way to provide any sort of social program.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 11 2012,12:15 am
QUOTE
The preamble itself is not Constitutional law, it merely states that the preamble states the fundamental purposes, principles, and goals of the government established by the Constitution.

Its purpose is to generally define the reasons behind the Constitution, establish what justifies a government, and explain how its citizens have come to create one.


I agree.  I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but watching to Occupy Wall Street and more often the Occupy Minnesota movement has gotten me a little more interested in what it says.  Everyone in that movement pretends to be a constitutional scholar so when debates start taking place I like to look things up and see what it says for myself.

What do you think about the 3rd amendment and how it relates to a standing professional army?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Mar. 11 2012,12:42 am

(blahblahblah @ Mar. 11 2012,12:15 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The preamble itself is not Constitutional law, it merely states that the preamble states the fundamental purposes, principles, and goals of the government established by the Constitution.

Its purpose is to generally define the reasons behind the Constitution, establish what justifies a government, and explain how its citizens have come to create one.


I agree.  I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but watching to Occupy Wall Street and more often the Occupy Minnesota movement has gotten me a little more interested in what it says.  Everyone in that movement pretends to be a constitutional scholar so when debates start taking place I like to look things up and see what it says for myself.

What do you think about the 3rd amendment and how it relates to a standing professional army?

The only thing the 3rd Amendment relates to, is the quartering of troops.  The Federal govt CANNOT compel a citizen to relinquish or provide room and board to a soldier(s).  Which is why I believe the framers provided a means for standing Armies that falls upon Congress under Article 1 section 8, but they also cautioned against keeping a standing army as well.
James Madison is quoted as saying:
QUOTE
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.


And from Henry St. George Tucker:
QUOTE
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.


Patrick Henry pointed out the difficulty associated with violent resistance to tyranny when a standing army is enforcing the orders of the government:
QUOTE
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 11 2012,12:49 am
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, also known as RomneyCare, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[3] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid).

Constitutional?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Mar. 11 2012,12:54 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 11 2012,12:49 am)
QUOTE
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, also known as RomneyCare, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[3] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid).

Constitutional?

Yes it is Constitutional in the State of Massachusetts, as it would have been a States Right issue, unless there was something in the Massachusetts Constitution prohibiting Romney care.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 11 2012,12:55 am
Grinning_Dragon,

I am curious about your opinion on another constitution topic, the coining of money.  Many occupiers believe that Fed is unsconstitutional and when pressed on this issue, if they are able to name a part of the constitution at all that would apply they will often times claim that in Artical 1 section 8 when it states (Congress shall have the power) "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures", that this means the Fed is unconstitutional.

My interpretation is that congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but this power was transferred to the Fed.  It says it has the power to do these things, but not the requirement to do them itself.

What say you?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Mar. 11 2012,1:07 am

(blahblahblah @ Mar. 11 2012,12:55 am)
QUOTE
Grinning_Dragon,

I am curious about your opinion on another constitution topic, the coining of money.  Many occupiers believe that Fed is unsconstitutional and when pressed on this issue, if they are able to name a part of the constitution at all that would apply they will often times claim that in Artical 1 section 8 when it states (Congress shall have the power) "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures", that this means the Fed is unconstitutional.

My interpretation is that congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but this power was transferred to the Fed.  It says it has the power to do these things, but not the requirement to do them itself.

What say you?

You said it right there
QUOTE
My interpretation is that congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but this power was transferred to the Fed.  It says it has the power to do these things, but not the requirement to do them itself.


Congress had the power, when Congress relinquished their role to a private bank, it became UNCONSTITUTIONAL as Congress no longer has control over the coining or the value of the money.  And since the days of the Federal Reserve they needed a way to fund it, this came by about the need for the 16th Amendment, the income tax.

The Fed appoints their trustees with NO input or approval from Congress, Congress is completely by-passed and the very people who run the FED are not beholden to the Citizens of the United States.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 11 2012,10:15 am
QUOTE
How about the huge cost of "defensive medicine"--we give far more tests and procedures today than ever before (many not necessary), simply to insulate physicians and clinics agains sue-happy lawyers that ask


I've always seen, a lot of that, as purely profit motivated. They are allowed to do so many procedures-- according to a persons coverage--and it is their job to make sure that the maximum allowable are performed.

Whether they truly are needed or not. So much of it is hard to argue against though. Because it's hard to be against being thorough when it comes to your health right?

It makes for a very shady grey area. IMO

But for the most part--people don't question it. Or if they do. They just critically grimace for a moment. Then just give a sigh of relief that they are covered and the collective is paying for it.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 11 2012,10:21 am
QUOTE
I really think the manufacturing sector is in a position where they are deciding if they want the 100 jobs at $20/hour or the 200 jobs at $10/hour


Or how about a 1,000 jobs at a $1 an hour?

So for a family of 10. That would be $10 dollars an hour.

So much for your extolling the virtues of growth.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 11 2012,10:30 am

(grassman @ Mar. 10 2012,9:44 pm)
QUOTE
If you are so strong on our Constitution and Bill Of Rights, how do you feel about having a standing, and professional military? :dunno:

Who is professing to be a consitutional scholar?
Are you referring to the 3rd or are you somehow trying to connect a standing army to the 2nd?  Or are you referring to modern-day police vs 1700s use of military as policing the people?   :dunno: Since the first 10 ammendments are considered the bill of rights.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 11 2012,10:48 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 11 2012,12:49 am)
QUOTE
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, also known as RomneyCare, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[3] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid).

Constitutional?

Which Constitution?
US or Mass.?!!
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 11 2012,11:00 am

(hymiebravo @ Mar. 11 2012,10:15 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
How about the huge cost of "defensive medicine"--we give far more tests and procedures today than ever before (many not necessary), simply to insulate physicians and clinics agains sue-happy lawyers that ask


I've always seen, a lot of that, as purely profit motivated. They are allowed to do so many procedures-- according to a persons coverage--and it is their job to make sure that the maximum allowable are performed.

Whether they truly are needed or not. So much of it is hard to argue against though. Because it's hard to be against being thorough when it comes to your health right?

It makes for a very shady grey area. IMO

But for the most part--people don't question it. Or if they do. They just critically grimace for a moment. Then just give a sigh of relief that they are covered and the collective is paying for it.

I dont know that there are more tests per se, but with the availability of new technology it may seem so.
Many times it takes more than a simple blood test to make a diagnoses.  And with the availability of new treatment options many of the tests are now able to pinpoint the souce of the ailment, disease, injury and this aids to assist the physician toward the most effect treatment.  I would be skeptical if a physician did NOT perform additional tests!
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 11 2012,4:08 pm

(hymiebravo @ Mar. 11 2012,10:21 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I really think the manufacturing sector is in a position where they are deciding if they want the 100 jobs at $20/hour or the 200 jobs at $10/hour


Or how about a 1,000 jobs at a $1 an hour?

So for a family of 10. That would be $10 dollars an hour.

So much for your extolling the virtues of growth.

Even if we all worked for a dollar an hour it wouldn’t be good enough, we could spiral down as far as slaveholder and slave and they’d want to increase workload and cut rations to eke out that extra profit..
The Republican plutocracy seeks to rollback democracy’s social gains, such as public education, health care, collective bargaining, a living wage, safe work conditions the right to privacy, the separation of church and state..it’s time to stand our ground...

RIGHT TO WORK
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 11 2012,4:47 pm
QUOTE

The size of the church has nothing to do with their religous beliefs.  Size has to do with the number of employees they would need to insure if they were a self-insurer like the Catholic church.  If a church only has six employees, then self-insuring would be extremely risky because that is not a large enough risk pool.  Size also has to do with amount of money the church is willing to risk.  In order to self-insure you need to have assets to cover medical claims.  If a small church is unwilling or unable to self insure, yet wants to provide insurance coverage they will have to go into the market and purchase the coverage.  They will have to pick from the coverages available because again, they are unwilling  or unable to self-insure.

What does the size of the church have to do with their belief that a medical procedure is wrong?

What does self insuring have to do with it? If a person worked for Jehovah's witness and needed a blood transfusion do you think they should be able to deny that procedure because it's against their beliefs, and they self insure?
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 11 2012,8:51 pm
QUOTE
What does the size of the church have to do with their belief that a medical procedure is wrong?


Size of the church has nothing to do with their belief that a medical procedure is wrong.  

QUOTE
What does self insuring have to do with it? If a person worked for Jehovah's witness and needed a blood transfusion do you think they should be able to deny that procedure because it's against their beliefs, and they self insure?


Ultimately yes, I do think Jehovah's Witness if they were a self-insurer should be able to deny coverage of blood transfusions to members of their health insurance plan.  I am certainly however not going to lose any sleep if Jehovah's Witness has to cover blood transfusions and the Catholic church is forced to pay for birth control. 

The fact that the Catholic church is a self-insurer matters because it seems the GOP and Catholic church has made the self-insurer versus third party insurer distinction the basis of their objection.  When a previous poster referenced this distinction and you then introduced this Jehovah's Witness angle I was curious if something had happened with that church that was similar yet they had lost and the GOP was now introducing a double standard of some sort, or there was a point to bringing the Jehovah's Witness situation up.  I still don't see the point, but I am over it.

It seems your position is probably that everyone is entitled to the same coverage.  It's possible the employees of the church may be believers or non-believers and they shouldn't be denied coverage based on their employers belief.  If you are going with all of Bryan Kelly's arguments you also believe that most church goers and employees of the church are not really strictly adhering to these beliefs anyway.

I think for me this clears up my original question.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 11 2012,9:42 pm
How about the Muslim belief?   They have issues regarding insurance.  Will they be exempt??
Just askin.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 11 2012,10:49 pm

(Santorini @ Mar. 11 2012,9:42 pm)
QUOTE
How about the Muslim belief?   They have issues regarding insurance.  Will they be exempt??
Just askin.

Who are you asking?
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 11 2012,11:10 pm

(Santorini @ Mar. 11 2012,10:48 am)
QUOTE
Which Constitution?
US or Mass.?!!

States are not allowed to secede from the Union. If you do not agree with the ideas of America then you are allowed to leave, but you cannot take the land that belongs to the United States government.

Congress passed ObamaCare for the benefit of the United States and its people under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.. Had Massachusetts violated the US Constitution, their Health Care Mandate would have been overturned..
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 12 2012,12:04 am
QUOTE

Ultimately yes, I do think Jehovah's Witness if they were a self-insurer should be able to deny coverage of blood transfusions to members of their health insurance plan.


QUOTE
It's possible the employees of the church may be believers or non-believers and they shouldn't be denied coverage based on their employers belief.

So which is it? You seem to want it both ways. I still don't see your point of self insuring? Do you think that employers that self insure should be able to decide what they will or won't cover?

Do your beliefs apply only to the Catholic church and other large churches, or do you think that smaller religions should be able to deny coverage that goes against their beliefs?

If the Catholics can avoid certain provisions of Health Care reform do you think Muslims should be able to opt out of insurance of any kind, or does  it only apply to the Catholic church?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 12 2012,4:44 am

(irisheyes @ Mar. 10 2012,12:46 am)
QUOTE
Jim-
QUOTE
do you suppose it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that we have the most litigious and sue-happy country on the planet?


"Oh no, the burden on the poor Doctors!"  Yes, we're more litigious than many countries, but conservatives never tell you that that cost amounts to less than one percent.  Even the reforms against litigation don't amount to ANY decrease in health care costs, those red states with tough malpractice reform laws and caps see their costs climb just as much (sometimes more) than blue states.

There are ways you can search to find out how many times a doc has been sued, and regardless of what the media and conservatives claim, it's quite seldom.  But if you ask a guy making half a millionaire a year why health care costs are so high, I'm betting he's not going to tell you it's because he's got several Mercedes and after your surgery he's buying another.  Nope, it's the damn lawyers!   :dunce:

There are lawsuits, I've done a fair amount of research on it.  But if a surgeon leaves a sponge in you or cuts of the wrong limb, I really doubt you're going to just say "accidents happen" and go on your way.

QUOTE
Do you suppose that it might be because we have the most DRUG MANUFACTURERS on the planet?


Grassman beat me to it.  If we have the most here, making it here, it should be cheapest here.  Other countries are far stricter on what the drug manufacturers and hospitals can charge, not us.  The AMA and pharmaceutical industries have far more power than consumers ever will.  As the golden rule says, "He who has the gold, makes the rules".

QUOTE
Do you suppose that it MIGHT be because the U.S. starting next month will move from SECOND to the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE OF ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET?


They pay the effective tax rate, not the one the GOP talks about.  And most of our local hospitals don't pay corporate tax at all, because they're non-profit.  Even the pharmaceutical industry at most is going to pay tax rates in the 20's because they can lower it in many ways.

Corporate tax rates are high on some corporations, but how do you think it is that many of our biggest corporations don't even pay taxes?  It's because the United States is the most relaxed industrialized nation on ways to lower that tax liability: LIFO (last in, first out), exceptions, credits, and sending money overseas before receiving it back.

Besides that, some corporate laws, like S Corp do not pay corporate tax regardless.  They're taxes on income of owners after expenses.  Now, that's perfect because they can use corporate funds to buy cars, cruises, and other executive perks and call them "expenses" before they even do the accounting of what their earnings are.  Is that fun?  I bet the guy on the forklift can't do that.   :D

:clap:   And there was no REAL response to that was there.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 12 2012,4:54 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 11 2012,11:10 pm)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Mar. 11 2012,10:48 am)
QUOTE
Which Constitution?
US or Mass.?!!

States are not allowed to secede from the Union. If you do not agree with the ideas of America then you are allowed to leave, but you cannot take the land that belongs to the United States government.

Congress passed ObamaCare for the benefit of the United States and its people under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.. Had Massachusetts violated the US Constitution, their Health Care Mandate would have been overturned..

What's the point of the states even having a constitution? Even more so what's the point of the tenth amendment?

As far as Obamacare? Summer's coming, I guess we'll see.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 12 2012,6:04 am
Self Banished, there's alot of different surveys done, but not many ACTUAL surveys done where the people are asked how they feel about their medical care in other countries. Here's one I found. Might make you feel better.

< http://scienceblogs.com/deniali...eal.php >

So, after seeing some data on more than the few horror stories from health systems around the world, are you convinced that universal systems will mean longer wait times? Poorer care? More expensive care? I believe the data suggests more people around the world in these systems experience less of these problems than those of us in the US. We spend more, almost twice as much as any other country. Despite that, our wait times for physicians are worse, we pay far more out of pocket for prescriptions and copays than any other system, we spend more on administration of health care than any other country, we have more people who avoid seeing the doctor for fear of costs, and we are more likely to say we want our system scrapped. In an update to this analysis [2] the Commonwealth fund found that in deaths which were amenable to health care interventions the US performed worse than the other 18 industrialized countries to which it was compared.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 12 2012,8:42 am
On the infant mortality rate
Excerpts from a report from the CDC:
The U.S. infant mortality rate was still higher than for most European countries when births at less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded.
The infant mortality rate for infants born at 24–27 weeks of gestation was lower in the United
States than in most European countries (except Norway and Sweden); seven countries had higher
rates. For infants born at 28–31 weeks of gestation, the U.S. rate was lower than for all countries
shown except Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. For infants born at 32–36 weeks of gestation, the
U.S. infant mortality rate was lower than for all countries shown except Austria and Norway.
However, for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more, the United States’ infant mortality
rate was highest among the countries studied.
In 2004, when births at less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded, 12.4% of U.S. births were preterm, compared with 5.5% in Ireland, 6.3% in Sweden and France, and 7.4% in England and Wales. In the United States, 1 out of every 8 births were born preterm, whereas in Ireland and Finland only 1 out of 18 births were born preterm.
Among the 21 countries shown in Figure 2, the percentage of preterm births in the United States was 65% higher than in England and Wales, and more than double that for Ireland, Finland, and Greece.
Reporting differences have little effect on the percentage of preterm births because most preterm births occur well after 22 weeks of gestation. For example, the percentage of preterm births for the United States in 2004 was 12.5% when all births were included and 12.4% when births of less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded.
Because preterm births are at greater risk of death or disability than term births, countries with a higher percentage of preterm births tend to have higher infant mortality rates.
In 2005, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel. There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

< http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2htm...b23.pdf >
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 12 2012,9:43 am
That same report you omitted:
Quote:
Although most countries require that all live births be reported, limits on birth registration requirements for some countries do have the potential to affect infant mortality comparison, especially if very small infants who die soon after birth are excluded from infant mortality comparisons.
There is also concern that birth registration may be incomplete near the lower end of reporting requirement.
Differences in reporting live births between countries can have an impact on international comparisons of infant mortality.There can also be differences between physician or hospitals in reporting of births.
Infant mortality rate for preterm infants are lower in the US than in most European countries.
unquote:
The last sentence of your post is undeniably pure conjecture !
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 12 2012,11:42 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 12 2012,6:04 am)
QUOTE
Self Banished, there's alot of different surveys done, but not many ACTUAL surveys done where the people are asked how they feel about their medical care in other countries. Here's one I found. Might make you feel better.

< http://scienceblogs.com/deniali...eal.php >

So, after seeing some data on more than the few horror stories from health systems around the world, are you convinced that universal systems will mean longer wait times? Poorer care? More expensive care? I believe the data suggests more people around the world in these systems experience less of these problems than those of us in the US. We spend more, almost twice as much as any other country. Despite that, our wait times for physicians are worse, we pay far more out of pocket for prescriptions and copays than any other system, we spend more on administration of health care than any other country, we have more people who avoid seeing the doctor for fear of costs, and we are more likely to say we want our system scrapped. In an update to this analysis [2] the Commonwealth fund found that in deaths which were amenable to health care interventions the US performed worse than the other 18 industrialized countries to which it was compared.

Oh Rosalind...
Quote:
Its a paradox of modern times that healthcare systems, created during a period of relative prosperity in the devloped world, are facing financial ruin.
The basic problem is the spiralling cost of healthcare which is expected to continue. (sound familiar?)
Europes governments and other payers are trying to slow that upward spiral.
Europes healthcare system is paid by the population at large with the risks of medical expenditures essentially pooled.
Finanacial contributions required for healthcare have risen steadily, to the point where governments realize that further increases are no longer possible or politically acceptable.
Yet the rise in the cost of healthcare continues to outstrip economic growth and shows no signs of slowing down.
To contribute to the debate about the future of healthcare in Europe, the Economist Intelligence Unit interviewed 28 leading healthcare experts between Dec. 2010 and March 2011.
Healthcare costs are rising faster than available funding.
The future of healthcare will be shaped by seven separate but interconnecting trends:
*healthcare spending will continue to rise
*keeping universal healthcare will requiring rationing of services & consolidation of healthcare facilities, as
 public resources fall short of public demand
*patients will need to take more responsibility for their
 own health
...
Drawing on  the trends, we have identified the following five scenarios for European healthcare
*e-health takes a prominant role
*preventative medicine takes precedence over     treating the sick...
Healthcare systems in Europe look like they were designed in the 1950s.
When Europes national healthcare systems were established in the 1930s and 1940s, the two main medical concerns were the spread of infection and malnutrition. Yet little has changed since the 1950s in the way healthcare systems are run and how they are financed.
...Yet, healthcare systems that claim to be univeral have never quite lived up to the word.
ALL contain some level of price rationing, so that different levels of care are provided to different
people.
We are eventually going to have to talk about the rationing of care.
Stephen Gutzet, executive director at Germanys Stifling Charite agrees and believes that rationing is set to become more widespread.
Unquote
Source Economist Intelligence Unit

horror stories?!  really?!
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 12 2012,3:05 pm
a Senate committee voted 7-6 to refer the "right to work" constitutional amendment to its next stop at the Senate Rules Committee.

All DFLers on the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee voted against the measure. One Republican, Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria voted against it...

< http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/142307285.html >
< My Webpage >
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 12 2012,5:28 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 12 2012,4:54 am)
QUOTE
Even more so what's the point of the tenth amendment?

There are ways around the tenth amendment..

1) commerce clause

2) federal funding rules (If the state wants federal dollars, they need to implement certain federal laws..)
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 12 2012,6:39 pm
^ How interesting how you put that,"ways around"

Typical polictical speak. Are you running for office this fall?
Do you even think before you type?
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 12 2012,6:48 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 12 2012,12:04 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE

Ultimately yes, I do think Jehovah's Witness if they were a self-insurer should be able to deny coverage of blood transfusions to members of their health insurance plan.


QUOTE
It's possible the employees of the church may be believers or non-believers and they shouldn't be denied coverage based on their employers belief.

So which is it? You seem to want it both ways. I still don't see your point of self insuring? Do you think that employers that self insure should be able to decide what they will or won't cover?

Do your beliefs apply only to the Catholic church and other large churches, or do you think that smaller religions should be able to deny coverage that goes against their beliefs?

If the Catholics can avoid certain provisions of Health Care reform do you think Muslims should be able to opt out of insurance of any kind, or does  it only apply to the Catholic church?

QUOTE
So which is it? You seem to want it both ways. I still don't see your point of self insuring? Do you think that employers that self insure should be able to decide what they will or won't cover?


This is me explaining my position:"Ultimately yes, I do think Jehovah's Witness if they were a self-insurer should be able to deny coverage of blood transfusions to members of their health insurance plan.  I am certainly however not going to lose any sleep if Jehovah's Witness has to cover blood transfusions and the Catholic church is forced to pay for birth control."

This is me taking a guess at your position:
"It seems your position is probably that everyone is entitled to the same coverage.  It's possible the employees of the church may be believers or non-believers and they shouldn't be denied coverage based on their employers belief.  If you are going with all of Bryan Kelly's arguments you also believe that most church goers and employees of the church are not really strictly adhering to these beliefs anyway."

The point of the point about self-insuring
The GOP has attempted to frame the debate as religious organazations which self insure could be forced to cover things against their religous beliefs, you brought up the Johevah's Witness.  I thought perhaps you had a clever point to make.  I was very wrong about that.

QUOTE
Do your beliefs apply only to the Catholic church and other large churches, or do you think that smaller religions should be able to deny coverage that goes against their beliefs?


Any and all churches that are designing an insurance product.  For that matter any insurance company designing an insurance product should be able to decide what is covered and what is not.  This of course is implicity a stance against healthcare reform and universal healthcare.

QUOTE
If the Catholics can avoid certain provisions of Health Care reform do you think Muslims should be able to opt out of insurance of any kind, or does  it only apply to the Catholic church?


If there are exceptions for religious beliefs in Obamacare I would say its only fair to allow all religions the same freedom and flexibility.  Why does everyone keep singling out Musilims like they are the lowest common denominator?  It's a sad commentary on your prejudice/bigotry.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 12 2012,9:48 pm
QUOTE

The GOP has attempted to frame the debate as religious organazations which self insure could be forced to cover things against their religous beliefs, you brought up the Johevah's Witness.  I thought perhaps you had a clever point to make.  I was very wrong about that.

Where do you come up with this self insured argument? Why should it matter to an employee of a religious organazation organization if that organization is self insured? And why do we care how the GOP "is trying to frame the debate"?

Out of curiosity, a clever fella like you should be able to show us where the GOP is making this about self insured organizations, how about a link? The only organization I've heard talked about is the Catholic church and their aversion to birth control, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention.


QUOTE

This of course is implicity a stance against healthcare reform and universal healthcare.

I'd say the vast majority of Americans realize this is implicity implicitly about the GOP trying to turn people against the Health Care reform law, and really has nothing to do with religion. I'd also say it pretty much blew up in their face.

QUOTE

If there are exceptions for religious beliefs in Obamacare I would say its only fair to allow all religions the same freedom and flexibility.  Why does everyone keep singling out Musilims like they are the lowest common denominator?  It's a sad commentary on your prejudice/bigotry.

WTF? I try to use the Jehovah's Witness beliefs as an example and you had an issue with their size, so I picked a much more popular religion and that seems to make me a bigot? You right wing kooks are an odd bunch. :dunce:
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 13 2012,12:46 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 12 2012,6:39 pm)
QUOTE
^ How interesting how you put that,"ways around"

Typical polictical speak. Are you running for office this fall?
Do you even think before you type?

I think I'll re-post why there are ways around the tenth amendment..

1) commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution)

2) federal funding rules (If the state wants federal dollars, they need to implement certain federal laws..)

I suggest you quit mixing alcohol and wacky weed..
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 13 2012,4:44 am
^ This is the problem today in this country, instead of following the constitution there seems to be a wave of"we'll just work our way around this and circumvent the law" Hopefully, the supreme court will see though this folly this summer and strike this farce down.

By the way, I don't use either life's pretty good without it.

I'm curious though, do you buy themname brand stuff or do you get the 99 cent cheap cans at WalMart for huffing'? :dunce:
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 13 2012,7:18 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 12 2012,3:05 pm)
QUOTE
a Senate committee voted 7-6 to refer the "right to work" constitutional amendment to its next stop at the Senate Rules Committee.

All DFLers on the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee voted against the measure. One Republican, Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria voted against it...

< http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/142307285.html >
< My Webpage >

I think one thing that is overlooked in all the arguing about whether or not this is such a great idea, is morale.
QUOTE
Workplace events play a large part in changing employee morale, such as heavy layoffs, the cancelation of overtime, canceling benefits programs, and the lack of union representation. Other events can also influence workplace morale, such as sick building syndrome, low wages, and employees being mistreated.


That is as big a factor as anything in how things go for economic development. As much as free land, forgivable loans and tax abatement.

I mean if you really are concerned about the overall good of the country and not just pretending like you are.

You have this decades long battle against working people in The United States. Where too much emphasis has been placed away from the workers. They are portrayed as bad guys.

Yea they're the bad guys. Like the soldiers over in the Middle East are the bad guys right?

Funny how people are ready to put yellow magnets on their cars and tie ribbons on trees for that.

But they aren't willing to support the troops, the working men and women, that make the country run.

Has. . .  "every man for himself" ever been a battle strategy in a war?

Why is it being touted, by some, as a good strategy for the benefit of the country?
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 13 2012,7:27 am
I have another question:

How many people think that those states listed as RTW are better than Minnesota?

How are you going to remove 2/3 or more of the population to replicate that element as well, in many cases? lol
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 13 2012,11:06 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 13 2012,4:44 am)
QUOTE
^ This is the problem today in this country, instead of following the constitution there seems to be a wave of"we'll just work our way around this and circumvent the law" Hopefully, the supreme court will see though this folly this summer and strike this farce down.

Its been happening since at least the 1930's.. :dunce:
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 13 2012,11:13 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 13 2012,11:06 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 13 2012,4:44 am)
QUOTE
^ This is the problem today in this country, instead of following the constitution there seems to be a wave of"we'll just work our way around this and circumvent the law" Hopefully, the supreme court will see though this folly this summer and strike this farce down.

Its been happening since at least the 1930's.. :dunce:

read: FDR

Add to that the 2000s.  
Read: Shrub

Sickening.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 13 2012,12:18 pm
^Yeah,I know :(
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 13 2012,1:02 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 12 2012,9:48 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

The GOP has attempted to frame the debate as religious organazations which self insure could be forced to cover things against their religous beliefs, you brought up the Johevah's Witness.  I thought perhaps you had a clever point to make.  I was very wrong about that.

Where do you come up with this self insured argument? Why should it matter to an employee of a religious organazation organization if that organization is self insured? And why do we care how the GOP "is trying to frame the debate"?

Out of curiosity, a clever fella like you should be able to show us where the GOP is making this about self insured organizations, how about a link? The only organization I've heard talked about is the Catholic church and their aversion to birth control, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention.


QUOTE

This of course is implicity a stance against healthcare reform and universal healthcare.

I'd say the vast majority of Americans realize this is implicity implicitly about the GOP trying to turn people against the Health Care reform law, and really has nothing to do with religion. I'd also say it pretty much blew up in their face.

QUOTE

If there are exceptions for religious beliefs in Obamacare I would say its only fair to allow all religions the same freedom and flexibility.  Why does everyone keep singling out Musilims like they are the lowest common denominator?  It's a sad commentary on your prejudice/bigotry.

WTF? I try to use the Jehovah's Witness beliefs as an example and you had an issue with their size, so I picked a much more popular religion and that seems to make me a bigot? You right wing kooks are an odd bunch. :dunce:

This entire debate is why healthcare should and needs to be left alone.
The recognition of the rights of some as justification to simultaneously neglect the rights of others is the key component of this debate.
And as such, this law of forcing some to abjure their faith and belief is in an of itself unconstitutional...no matter how you try to slice it.
Further, some people single out Muslims because of preferential treatment displayed toward Muslims in the name of religion and faith.  One example is the TSA regulation regarding searching or pat down of Muslim women in full dress.  It is allowed head and neck but no full body nor scans.  (unless this ruling has changed recently :dunno: ) Obama allowed this exception in 2010.  However, Catholic nuns in full dress are not allowed the same excemption?  It is this type of disparity in the law that some question.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 13 2012,1:37 pm
QUOTE

This entire debate is why healthcare should and needs to be left alone.

The debate is over, we passed Health Care reform and it's now the law of the land.

QUOTE

Further, some people single out Muslims because of preferential treatment displayed toward Muslims in the name of religion and faith.  One example is the TSA regulation regarding searching or pat down of Muslim women in full dress.  It is allowed head and neck but no full body nor scans.  (unless this ruling has changed recently :dunno: ) Obama allowed this exception in 2010.

You're a complete loon, Muslims have never been exempt, and Obama wouldn't have been the one to make the exemption. :crazy:

Shouldn't you be over at WorldNutDaily talking about the President's birth certificate?
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 13 2012,1:59 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 13 2012,1:37 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

This entire debate is why healthcare should and needs to be left alone.

The debate is over, we passed Health Care reform and it's now the law of the land.

We also passed prohibition but that got repealed, so there is hope.

It is not that I am not in favor of a health care overhaul, just not in favor of the current one.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 13 2012,5:14 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 13 2012,4:44 am)
QUOTE
Hopefully, the supreme court will see though this folly this summer and strike this farce down.

Just like they did with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.. :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 13 2012,5:50 pm
Why even worry about those three? They're not gonna be there ina few years. But I guess it's good that you mention them, we're gonna take it right up the old poop chute and in the end get nothing for it.

I still think you huff paint Alky.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 13 2012,5:52 pm

(Glad I Left @ Mar. 13 2012,1:59 pm)
QUOTE

(Liberal @ Mar. 13 2012,1:37 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

This entire debate is why healthcare should and needs to be left alone.

The debate is over, we passed Health Care reform and it's now the law of the land.

We also passed prohibition but that got repealed, so there is hope.

It is not that I am not in favor of a health care overhaul, just not in favor of the current one.

There is hope :angel:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 13 2012,6:39 pm
Tell legislators why Right to Work legislation is: UNFAIR
This amendment tilts the balance even more toward corporations at a time when CEO pay has grown 243 times higher than what the average workers makes.
Minnesota workers make companies profitable and we have to stop this unfair and irresponsible corporate power grab that benefits only the one percent.


This law is unnecessary and doesn’t belong in our constitution. Under current law, no one in Minnesota can be forced to join a union. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that unionized workers cannot be forced to pay dues for union political activities they disagree with.


Plain and simple, this isn’t a right to work; it’s the right to hurt workers, our economy, and the middle class.


Poll: Would you vote for or against the "right to work" constitutional amendment if it is on the November ballot?


< Vote here >
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 13 2012,7:39 pm
If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, states may still fight back.

Read more: < http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73898.html#ixzz1p2yXBaLt >

Right to Work legislation is: UNFAIR
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 14 2012,12:41 am

(Liberal @ Mar. 13 2012,1:37 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

This entire debate is why healthcare should and needs to be left alone.

The debate is over, we passed Health Care reform and it's now the law of the land.

QUOTE

Further, some people single out Muslims because of preferential treatment displayed toward Muslims in the name of religion and faith.  One example is the TSA regulation regarding searching or pat down of Muslim women in full dress.  It is allowed head and neck but no full body nor scans.  (unless this ruling has changed recently :dunno: ) Obama allowed this exception in 2010.

You're a complete loon, Muslims have never been exempt, and Obama wouldn't have been the one to make the exemption. :crazy:

Shouldn't you be over at WorldNutDaily talking about the President's birth certificate?

You are so transparent!
(Not to mention a bully)

Is there any part of your extreme, radical leftist nature that is not confrontational :dunno:

I got my info. from CBS...
Where did you get yours?!!
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 14 2012,8:02 am
QUOTE
This law is unnecessary and doesn’t belong in our constitution

I will agree that it doesn't belong in the State Constitution, but I disagree that it is unfair.
It is obvious the whole amendment thing is an end run around the governor and I think the republitards will pay the price at some point for this.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 14 2012,1:13 pm
QUOTE

You are so transparent!
(Not to mention a bully)

You think I'm a bully because I called you out on your talk radio lie about Muslims getting preferential treatment?

QUOTE

Is there any part of your extreme, radical leftist nature that is not confrontational :dunno:

The only people that think I'm confrontational are the people that repeat stupid right wing lies. If you don't want me to beat up on you for lying then just quit lying.

QUOTE

I got my info. from CBS...
Where did you get yours?!!

CBS never reported that Muslims get preferential treatment from the TSA because of Obama. The only religious group that gets preferential treatment is the Sikh's who are allowed to pat down their own turban then their hands are swabbed to check for explosives.

So the way I've got it figured is you're either a liar, or too stupid to know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2012,3:34 pm
^one raghead is the same as another.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2012,9:10 pm
Holy smokes...42 pages later and still nothing solved.  

Any idiot worth a lick knows Obummer was forced to change the political conversation in this country from the economy to womens rights.  It's all about political survival. 

1.  The economy is still in the tanker and employment hasn't made any significant gains, no matter how the media spins it.  
2.  He was in danger of losing the women vote.

Brilliant move I might add since there are whack jobs (including those on here) that will carry his torch.  This wasn't even a topic of discussion within the GOP campaigns until Obummer usurped the 1st Ammendent.

Wasn't it obvious that the Catholics were not preventing a woman from accessing birth control?  They just don't want to pay for it.  It violates their faith.  Nobody, not even the Catholics, are preventing a woman from walking her arse down to the drug store and buying it herself.

Obama knew he was in violation of the 1st ammendment but didn't care for obvious reasons.  You all need to give him a little more credit.

nuff said...
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 14 2012,10:21 pm
In 2011, Republicans introduced 1100 anti women bills that were passed or are pending in the US that represent their war on women's rights.

They are enthusiastically anti women and anti worker.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 14 2012,11:58 pm
New York Republican Lawmaker: My Party Wants To 'Take Women Back Decades'
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 15 2012,5:08 am

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2012,9:10 pm)
QUOTE
Nobody, not even the Catholics, are preventing a woman from walking her arse down to the drug store and buying it herself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, < world news >, and < news about the economy >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 15 2012,5:31 am

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2012,9:10 pm)
QUOTE
Holy smokes...42 pages later and still nothing solved.  

Any idiot worth a lick knows Obummer was forced to change the political conversation in this country from the economy to womens rights.  It's all about political survival. 

1.  The economy is still in the tanker and employment hasn't made any significant gains, no matter how the media spins it.  
2.  He was in danger of losing the women vote.

Brilliant move I might add since there are whack jobs (including those on here) that will carry his torch.  This wasn't even a topic of discussion within the GOP campaigns until Obummer usurped the 1st Ammendent.

Wasn't it obvious that the Catholics were not preventing a woman from accessing birth control?  They just don't want to pay for it.  It violates their faith.  Nobody, not even the Catholics, are preventing a woman from walking her arse down to the drug store and buying it herself.

Obama knew he was in violation of the 1st ammendment but didn't care for obvious reasons.  You all need to give him a little more credit.

nuff said...

Good call CC, but I think the 42 pages have been pretty good, it has exposed a lot of feelings from both sides, sad thing is that these sides are badly divided, miles apart and in some cases highly exaggerated.

You' so spot on with the observation of the lame stream news coverage, nobodies paying attention to the gas prices that seem to be increasing every day. In some areas of the country, the 5 dollar mark has been passed. The news coverage of this may be scant but the money left in people's pockets is becoming very scant too. Don't forget grocery prices too. Holy Crap! How many of you here do the grocery shopping for your household?

Point is, people vote with there wallets and the way it's going, Obama's starting to look just like that stupid peanut farmer we had back in the 70's. Trouble is, our choices on the other side are just as lame.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 15 2012,6:43 am

(Santorini @ Mar. 10 2012,1:47 pm)
QUOTE
You dont think I was attacking you, do you :angel:  No, just pointing out the obvious...you are a Catholic who lost his moral anchor.  I will keep praying for you!  See the thing is, and you know it, just because something triggers your fancy doesnt make it acceptable.  In life as well as with religion, there are guides/ rules to follow. It is very difficult to resist tempatations and hold on to the foundation when the socially acceptable thing to do is to cave into the lastest fad.

No, I don't think you were attacking me personally, I just find it odd that you called most Catholics "pathetic" and think that they're ignorant.  I can't imagine you saying that about Rush, so I guess when there's a cognitive dissonance between the political side and the religious side, we know which one you'll attack first.

As for this "moral anchor" talk in your post, I appreciate anyone praying for me, but I don't understand how you base my political beliefs with the idea that I'm immoral.

Somehow Rush and FOX have convinced you that this is about sex, and you already seem to be of the impression that sex is dirty and immoral if it's done for pleasure.  I posted the Fluke testimony, and if you would've actually watched it, you'd know that most of it was about health problems not related to sex.  Endomitriosis, ovarian cysts, etc.

QUOTE
One question Irish Eyes, you keep referring the majority of Catholics, minority of Catholics...just curious where these stats come from?  (Georgetown :rofl:  :rofl: )


I posted several polls and the website of a well known Catholic Priest, Father Andrew Greeley.  I think there were about four polls, mainly from Gallup but one from CNN < Page 36, post 351 >.  And in the book I referenced by Father Greeley, since he's a professor of sociology he's done extensive research on the subject of the beliefs of laypeople vs. the hiearchy.  Unfortunately, republicans only seem to care about what the Bishops think when it comes to contraceptives.  I guess they don't care to much on the issues of war, the death penalty, or the Catholic teachings on social justice.  Nope, hands down the republican party is at odds with the Catholic hierarchy, they're only using them to further their attack on birth control.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 15 2012,6:55 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 13 2012,6:39 pm)
QUOTE
Tell legislators why Right to Work legislation is: UNFAIR
This amendment tilts the balance even more toward corporations at a time when CEO pay has grown 243 times higher than what the average workers makes.
Minnesota workers make companies profitable and we have to stop this unfair and irresponsible corporate power grab that benefits only the one percent.


This law is unnecessary and doesn’t belong in our constitution. Under current law, no one in Minnesota can be forced to join a union. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that unionized workers cannot be forced to pay dues for union political activities they disagree with.


Plain and simple, this isn’t a right to work; it’s the right to hurt workers, our economy, and the middle class.


Poll: Would you vote for or against the "right to work" constitutional amendment if it is on the November ballot?


< Vote here >

I saw a little bit of the hearing. The group that was against the legislation did include people who identified themselves as being republicans.

Also that group, in general, seemed to be more articulate overall I thought.

Another thing that kind of stuck out to me was: A comment made by one of the republican legislators. I believe he identified himself as a former preacher of some sort. He was saying how all the noise and boisterous activities generated by the anti-RTW group present weren't making a positive impression on him.

And that that wouldn't sway he opinion on the matter. He was pro-RTW. BTW

I guess he never heard about the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

Also--Looking over the group on the committee in general. It's funny how we decide who is worthy of being believable or having good judgement. When really the archetypes that have been accepted since seemingly time immemorial are just as flawed and biased as anybody else on the street. And let's face it in many case even more so.

Gotta luv those baby kissers though doncha? lol

There sure seemed to be a lot of retirees in the mix, as well. Nice little retiree gig if you can get it I guess. . . right?  

I could have sworn that I heard somebody, later that day, on an MPR station report that the matter was going to the ballot.

Only to catch the tail end of something on KTTC saying that it doesn't really stand a chance of getting anywhere.

BTW--Don't tell the local potato products producer that Minnesota isn't a RTW state. They might not decide to expand their facility. And start threatening to move to Lake Mills again. lol   :sarcasm:

A
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 15 2012,7:32 am
Sen. Dave Thompson, R- Lakeville seems to be the master of the end-run, he requested that the so-called "right-to-work" bill be moved from the Senate Jobs and Economic Growth Committee to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's a simple procedural move, but it upends the typical Senate process that allows policy committees to debate and vote on bills that fall within their jurisdiction. The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly passed the so called "right to work" by a 7 to 6 vote, now it goes to the rules committee, If the rules committee forwards it, it’ll go to the floor of the senate..

MPR News Poll: Where do you stand on "right-to-work" legislation?

< Vote here >
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 15 2012,7:54 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 15 2012,5:08 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2012,9:10 pm)
QUOTE
Nobody, not even the Catholics, are preventing a woman from walking her arse down to the drug store and buying it herself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, < world news >, and < news about the economy >


Not sure what your point was by quoting me and posting this news clip.  I don't see anywhere in that clip that proves anyone is preventing women from walking their arse down to Wallgreen's to purchase a condom.

Lawrence OD states, to an unsuspecting audience, that Rush Limbaugh forced this controversy on her.  I call BS.  It was the liberal elite that trotted her up to Capitol Hill.  It was about the timing of the Obummer administration's violation of the 1st amendment that coincided with this testimony on Capitol Hill.  Rush commented on something that already made the news.   :dunce:


What she is trying to convey in this interview is that since women are paying for health insurance coverage THROUGH THE EMPLOYER, the private insurer should pay for the contraception.  All the insurer would have to do to recoup the cost of the contraception is build the cost of the premium into the plan.  Which brings us back to the point that the EMPLOYER has the right to design the plan how they see fit (with certain guidelines) and then offer it to the employee AS AN OPTION.

You can try to change the point, spin the truth, blur the lines, smear others, with hundreds of liberal media clips but here is the bottom line that never comes to the forefront in this debate.  It's always about what "I'm entitled to".

1.  employees rarely pay more than 1/3rd of the  premiums; the employer pays the majority of the premiums
2.  health care insurance that employers offer is an OPTIONAL benefits to the employee (they don't have to pay for something if they feel is not worth it)
3.  Health care insurance is called a BENEFIT.  It is not a right.
4.  the key word that Ms. Fluke uses is PRIVATE insurer.

I don't know about you but I believe in a capitalist society, a private company has the right to bring a product to the market place and YOU have the right to buy it or not.  The consumer has no right to demand that a private company produce anything for them.

Her arguement is weak.  The questions were weak.  The interview was lame.

Keep carrying that torch Alci.   :crazy:
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 15 2012,2:19 pm
liberal,
it is so funny  :rofl:  :rofl:  how you love to spin everything reported about on the conservative side as a lie.
and you still believe your hero obama and his cronies are swathed  in truth :rofl: Whose truth??
The liberal medias...and you call others idiots :dunce:
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 15 2012,2:42 pm
QUOTE
The consumer has no right to demand that a private company produce anything for them.


Congress does have the power to demand changes in Interstate Commerce, thats why Ms. Fluke was testifying before, Yes, Congress..
That sure was a liberal conspiracy that made Rush call her a "slut" and a "prostitute" :dunce:    :crazy:  :sarcasm:  

Now Republicans are not only anti women, anti worker, they are now pro-Insurance Companies/anti consumer..  :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 16 2012,7:51 am
QUOTE
The economic and political truth about right-to-work legislation
David Schultz

The debate over the merits of a constitutional amendment making Minnesota a right-to-work (RTW) state is heating up. Proponents of RTW contend that it will make Minnesota more business competitive and produce jobs. Opponents respond that it will lower family incomes. Because the debate has taken on partisan implications – with Republicans and Chamber of Commerce constituencies favoring RTW and Democrats and unions opposing it – it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Is RTW about economics, or is it about politics, directed at busting unions that have historically supported Democratic candidates and causes? The simple answer is that it is about both. RTW does not produce the economic benefits that its advocates claim, and instead the real justification has to rest upon its political aims.

What do we know about the economic impact of RTW? Legislative debates on the issue are generally badly informed or woefully devoid of fact-based impartial evidence. Often studies are cited by organizations with clear political agendas. Groups such as the Cato Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Chamber of Commerce argue that RTW laws produce lower unemployment rates for states. Conversely, the generally liberal Economic Policy Institute finds the opposite, and also asserts that RTW adversely impacts unionization and family incomes. More nuanced and independent research yields a better picture.

Assessing the claims
In "Right-to-Work Laws and Economic Development in Oklahoma" Lawrence Mishel finds no evidence that RTW laws increase employment. Conversely he finds evidence that they decrease wages. Lonnie Stevans of Hofstra University in a paper entitled "The Effect of Endogenous Right-to-Work Laws on Business and Economic Conditions in the United States: A Multivariate Approach" reached the same conclusion on both points, while also noting that the rate of self-employment was higher and bankruptcies lower in RTW states.

Conversely do RTW laws hurt unionization? H. Craig Petersen and Keith Lumsden, in "The Effect of Right-to-Work Laws on Unionization in the United States," find little evidence for this claim. States, for example, such as Nevada, which is RTW, have one of the higher unionization rates in the country at 16.6 percent in 2011. The same conclusion is reached in the article "The Effects of Right-to-Work Laws: a Review of the Literature," by William J. Moore and Robert J. Newman.

But in addition to the above research, one can also do the math to look at the impact of RTW. Data is available for 22 states with RTW and 29 plus the District of Columbia without. (Last month, Indiana became the 23rd RTW state.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides data on unionization rates, unemployment, and median family income. What do we learn from crunching some numbers?

Data is available for 22 states that have enacted right-to-work legislation. Indiana adopted a right-to-work law in February.
Fox's Bill O'Reilly asserts that RTW states have a much lower level of unemployment than the union states do. Using BLS December, 2010 data, the unemployment rate for RTW states was 9.2 percent, for non RTW it was 9.7 percent. Now look at the December 2011, BLS numbers. Supporters can point to the fact that seven of the top 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are RTW. Conversely, five of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are RTW.

Second, the average unemployment rate for RTW states in December 2011 was 7.6 percent, compared to 7.9 percent for non-RTW. Using the most recent January 2012 numbers, the unemployment rate for RTW states was 7.3 percent, and 7.8 percent for non-RTW states. Overall, not much differences here in terms of economic performance.

Stastistical correlation analysis
Another way to examine the issue is by doing statistical correlation analysis. Statistically, if being RTW decreases unemployment the correction with it is 1. If RTW increases unemployment the relationship is -1, and if the laws have no impact the relationship is 0. Is there any statistical correlation between a state being RTW and unemployment rates? The correlation is 0.09, essentially no relationship. Essentially, O'Reilly is wrong in his statement.

But the classification of states as O'Reilly does into those which are RTW versus union is too crude. Many RTW states do have unionization levels comparable to those lacking such legislation. Is there any statistical correlation between the percentage of the work force in a state that is unionized and unemployment rates? With a correlation of 0.1 the connection is almost nonexistent.

But now take a look at the differences from another angle. There is a significant difference in median family incomes in states that are RTW versus those that are not. Using a three-years-average median family income for 2009 to 2011, RTW states have a median family income of $46,919, non RTW it is $53,418, a difference of $6,499 or 13.9 percent per year. Testing for the impact of RTW on median family incomes, the relationship is -0.4. This means there is statistical evidence that RTW is associated with lower incomes: RTW depresses wages. Finally, the percentage of the state's work force unionized demonstrates a positive 0.47 correlation with incomes: Unions increase household incomes.

So it's fair to say ...
RTW laws are only one variable affecting the economic climate of a state. But it is fair to say that these laws have no real impact on unemployment and instead states with them have lower median incomes. Similarly, unionization does not depress employment and instead increases wages. Presumably more wages for workers means more consumption and a better economy in the state.

So if economics is not really the issue (unless one wants lower wages), then what is it is about?

It is about politics. Generally advocates for RTW are Republicans who see labor unions as primary supporters of Democrats. RTW laws, along with voter identification laws, are tools aimed at weakening the political support for the Democratic Party by making it more difficult for some to vote, organize and amass political resources. Simply put, it is an effort to rig the rules of politics to favor one side by demobilizing the other.

David Schultz is a professor at Hamline University School of Business, where he teaches classes on privatization and public, private and nonprofit partnerships. He is the editor of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE). Schultz blogs at Schultz's Take.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 16 2012,1:20 pm

(alcitizens @ Mar. 15 2012,2:42 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The consumer has no right to demand that a private company produce anything for them.


Congress does have the power to demand changes in Interstate Commerce, thats why Ms. Fluke was testifying before, Yes, Congress..
That sure was a liberal conspiracy that made Rush call her a "slut" and a "prostitute" :dunce:    :crazy:  :sarcasm:  

Now Republicans are not only anti women, anti worker, they are now pro-Insurance Companies/anti consumer..  :blush:

:rofl:  :rofl:

Quote:
Liberals seem to be running against a candidate that simply doesnt exist.  Theyve created this phantom conservative candidate that wants to take birth control off the drug store shelves, enslave black people, and is out of touch with America.

Liberals are projecting qualities of Obama on to conservatives!   It is actually Obama who is racist, mysogynist, and out of touch policies.
Lets start with Obamas tax payer funded extravagant date nites with his wife.  When unemployment is over 9% he was flying off on tax payer funded date nites with his wife.  They have the nerve to call conservatives out of touch?
How about Obamas racist policies?  Hes giving out funds for education based on skin color.  So even if you paid taxes to fund education you may not get it back if your not the right skin color. (Healthcare & Education Reconcilliation Act of 2010)
Obama is very misogynist.  This may be the most anti-women president we have ever seen.  This man has refused to come out against policy/ idea influences in his own camp who use derogatory speech toward women.  Obama has had 3 years to speak up against the filth coming from Maher who donated $1 million to Obamas SuperPac.
Obama remains out of touch as he promotes racist policies and remains silent on derogatory speech toward women.
Liberals create the fake racist, sexist phantom conservative candidate because they dont want us to look at their guy who IS actually sexist, racist, and out of touch!
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 16 2012,1:42 pm
QUOTE

liberal,
it is so funny  :rofl:  :rofl:  how you love to spin everything reported about on the conservative side as a lie.
and you still believe your hero obama and his cronies are swathed  in truth :rofl: Whose truth??
The liberal medias...and you call others idiots :dunce:


Whose truth? There's only one truth, and I'd guess you wouldn't recognize it if it bit you in the ass.

Still no link to back up your right wing rhetoric about Obama giving Muslims preferential treatment at airports?
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 16 2012,7:10 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 16 2012,1:42 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE

liberal,
it is so funny  :rofl:  :rofl:  how you love to spin everything reported about on the conservative side as a lie.
and you still believe your hero obama and his cronies are swathed  in truth :rofl: Whose truth??
The liberal medias...and you call others idiots :dunce:


Whose truth? There's only one truth, and I'd guess you wouldn't recognize it if it bit you in the ass.

Still no link to back up your right wing rhetoric about Obama giving Muslims preferential treatment at airports?

Liberals, like you,  think real news is defined by what they want to hear :rofl:

Just like a typical liberal, wanting someone else to do all the work...look it up yourself!
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 16 2012,7:17 pm

(Santorini @ Mar. 16 2012,7:10 pm)
QUOTE
Just like a typical liberal, wanting someone else to do all the work...look it up yourself!

:p  :crazy:
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 16 2012,7:45 pm

(Liberal @ Mar. 14 2012,1:13 pm)
QUOTE
CBS never reported that Muslims get preferential treatment from the TSA because of Obama. The only religious group that gets preferential treatment is the Sikh's who are allowed to pat down their own turban then their hands are swabbed to check for explosives.

So the way I've got it figured is you're either a liar, or too stupid to know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.

I would be interested to see the source for the preferential treatment of Sikh's statement.  I checked the TSA website and couldn't find an exception for Sikh's or for that matter any religion.  What it says is that all headwear is subject to the same screening requirements.  I did however find a blog that mentioned the self pat-down followed by swabbing the hands for explosives process.  It's probably safe to assume the TSA's website has it right though.

Looks like you are both wrong, no points can be awarded for that debate.
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 16 2012,9:45 pm
It's probably safe to assume the Sikh's website has it right though. :dunce:

< http://www.sikhcouncilusa.org/article.aspx?article=turbanpolicy >

QUOTE
According to the new guidelines by TSA, airport screeners will no longer "pat down" people wearing religious head coverings and travelers will have the choice to go through alternative security measures. Officials said that such alternatives may include walking through a machine that detects explosive chemicals or wearers could agree to pat down their own turban, and then have their hands swabbed with a cloth that is tested for chemical residue.
Posted by blahblahblah on Mar. 16 2012,10:44 pm

(alcitizens @ Mar. 16 2012,9:45 pm)
QUOTE
It's probably safe to assume the Sikh's website has it right though. :dunce:

< http://www.sikhcouncilusa.org/article.aspx?article=turbanpolicy >

QUOTE
According to the new guidelines by TSA, airport screeners will no longer "pat down" people wearing religious head coverings and travelers will have the choice to go through alternative security measures. Officials said that such alternatives may include walking through a machine that detects explosive chemicals or wearers could agree to pat down their own turban, and then have their hands swabbed with a cloth that is tested for chemical residue.


(I will confess that the emoticon has not helped in providing any tone to your response, I am not sure if you are messing with me or not.  I guess I will assume you are being serious)

We may have to agree to disagree, I am under the impression that TSA runs security at most major airports, so I have been using that as my main source for airport security policies.  If in fact the Sikh Council is in charge Santorini may be on to something.

QUOTE
On August 4, 2007, TSA implemented revisions to its screening procedures for head coverings. TSA does not conduct ethnic or religious profiling, and employs multiple checks and balances to ensure profiling does not happen.

All members of the traveling public are permitted to wear head coverings (whether religious or not) through the security checkpoints. The new standard procedures subject all persons wearing head coverings to the possibility of additional security screening, which may include a pat-down search of the head covering. Individuals may be referred for additional screening if the security officer cannot reasonably determine that the head area is free of a detectable threat item. If the issue cannot be resolved through a pat-down search, the individual will be offered the opportunity to remove the head covering in a private screening area.

TSA's security procedures, including the procedures for screening head coverings, are designed to ensure the security of the traveling public. These procedures are part of TSA's multi-layered approach to security screening.


null< TSA Website >

One caveat is that there seems to be complaints about inconsistent screening procedures, so its certainly possible that some Sikh passenger somewhere was allowed to pat down his own turban and then have his hands swabbed for explosives, but it does not seem to be an official policy.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 16 2012,11:20 pm
Republican’s lose their Balls..quote Expatrate..

QUOTE
Right-to-work' push appears stranded in Legislature

The proposed constitutional amendment does not seem to have enough legislative backers
Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem said Friday that he does not think there are enough votes in the Legislature right now to pass a proposed "right to work" constitutional amendment this session.

"The votes, frankly, aren't there on our side yet," said Senjem, R-Rochester. "And they are not there yet from the standpoint, as far as I'm aware, from the House's perspective."

A fight over the proposed "right to work" amendment would reshuffle the state's 2012 election dynamics, with unions and business groups likely to pour millions to win the newest battleground state for the divisive issue. If the legislative votes do not materialize, the Capitol would be spared the raucous fights over workers' rights that recently have rocked Capitols around the Midwest.

Already this week, hundreds of angry union members who see the measure as an attempt to bust unions and lower wages and benefits packed the Capitol as a Senate committee approved the measure by a single vote. Republicans pushing the proposal say it will make the state more competitive for homegrown businesses and help attract new ones.

Senjem said that one hearing may be all the measure will get this year, "unless and until" there are signs that a majority of lawmakers support the move. The House has yet to take a vote on the bill, and so far has no plans to do so.

On Friday, House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, avoided making any predictions about the measure's fate. He said he personally supports it but does not know how many of his colleagues will join him.

"It is something we continue to talk about," Zellers said.

Supporters say the fight is well worth it. A total of 23 states -- Indiana being the most recent, in February -- have adopted "right to work" laws.

The proposal would allow employees of unionized companies to not pay dues or fees -- a change from current state law, which requires nonmembers to pay for union services. Critics say this is really a union-busting effort, designed to starve unions of cash they often use for political activity.

"Right to work" states generally have far lower union membership than Minnesota, where 15.8 percent of all workers are unionized.

Although Republicans in Minnesota generally support the measure, already some Republicans have broken ranks to oppose it. On Monday, Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, joined his DFL colleagues in voting against it, and Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, sided with Democrats on a procedural vote. Moreover, two House committee chairmen -- Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, and Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead -- have criticized it.

There were other signs of discord, as well. Last week, Deputy Senate Majority Leader Julianne Ortman blasted fellow Republican Sen. Chris Gerlach after his private bulk-mail business sent out mailers to voters in her district urging them to pressure her to support the measure. She later voted for the proposal in committee.

This year, business groups have remained quiet on the issue. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership have not weighed in. Charlie Weaver, head of the partnership, has said members like the concept but worry that the reaction to the bill could hurt Republican legislative prospects in November.

If lawmakers approved the "right to work" measure, the question would go to voters on the 2012 ballot. That would mean heavy campaigning -- and fundraising -- on both sides. A possible result: less campaigning and fewer dollars for legislators' election-year efforts.

Legislators may also be eager to avoid the kind of vitriolic union demonstrations that have shutdown Capitols -- including in Indiana and Wisconsin -- in recent years. The scenes of shouting protesters and pitched battles are likely not the images they want the electorate to carry with them as they go to the polls.

Sen. Dave Thompson, chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said his colleagues should not fret about demonstrations. "We shouldn't be driven by fear, we should be driven by principle," he said.

The Lakeville Republican said he didn't mind defending the bill in committee on Monday although his words could barely be heard above the din of protesters' shouts.

"Obviously, the American system was working well," he said. "People were allowed to voice their concerns and their support and I sincerely believe that's what makes this country great."

Staff writer Jim Ragsdale contributed to this report

Rachel E. Stassen-Berger • Twitter: @rachelsb


The Republican Party has shown their Corporate Colors Vote the Bastards Out...
Posted by alcitizens on Mar. 17 2012,12:30 am

(blahblahblah @ Mar. 16 2012,10:44 pm)
QUOTE
If in fact the Sikh Council is in charge Santorini may be on to something.

You are either Santiani or related to her.. :dunce:  :hairpull:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2012,7:03 am
I see Senator Thompson made a statement that the other senators should not be driven by fear but rather by principles, I would have to agree, grow a set and vote the bill through.

Expatriate, though I admire your passion for this subject you're beginning to sound like a frothing dog. :angry:
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 17 2012,9:48 am

(alcitizens @ Mar. 15 2012,2:42 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The consumer has no right to demand that a private company produce anything for them.


Congress does have the power to demand changes in Interstate Commerce, thats why Ms. Fluke was testifying before, Yes, Congress..
That sure was a liberal conspiracy that made Rush call her a "slut" and a "prostitute" :dunce:    :crazy:  :sarcasm:  

Now Republicans are not only anti women, anti worker, they are now pro-Insurance Companies/anti consumer..  :blush:

What, are you some kind of moron?  You should listen to yourself.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2012,10:59 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 17 2012,7:03 am)
QUOTE
Expatriate, though I admire your passion for this subject you're beginning to sound like a frothing dog. :angry:

I’m fairly passionate about the Right to Work Amendment.. It was an attack on every working man and woman in the State if you realize it or not, the Union’s mobilized quickly for the battle with the Republicans...
Between the Brodkorb scandal and unpopularity of the Right to Work for less Amendment the Republican leadership realized they’d lose their majority in the fall, I’m thinking this snake has more than one head it’ll come back to life next winter...
grrrrrrrrrrrrr give a dog a bone and try to take it away you'll likely get bit....
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2012,3:12 pm
^ I don't agree but you just put a big smile on my face :D
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 18 2012,1:09 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 17 2012,7:03 am)
QUOTE
I see Senator Thompson made a statement that the other senators should not be driven by fear but rather by principles, I would have to agree, grow a set and vote the bill through.

Expatriate, though I admire your passion for this subject you're beginning to sound like a frothing dog. :angry:

Thats similar to what I said in a previous post somewhere??
Conservatives/Republicans are motivated by principles whereas liberals/ dems are driven by what is promised to them!
The differences between the two major parties comes down to genetics, childhood etc and party position cannot be helped if a person is predisposed...if this is true...that would explain the liberal democrats  :p
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 18 2012,8:05 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 17 2012,7:03 am)
QUOTE
I see Senator Thompson made a statement that the other senators should not be driven by fear but rather by principles, I would have to agree, grow a set and vote the bill through.

Senator Thompson?  :rofl:

Did you ever listen to that kook when he had a radio show on AM 1500?  :p

I remember one Sunday, a caller was relentlessly badgering Dave on why we should be so concerned about Israel. Finally, Dave erupts, "BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN OF GOD!!!!!"

Principles? Which ones? The Zionist ones, or the ones meant for us, the Great Unwashed?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2012,9:13 am
^Are you feeling left out?
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 18 2012,9:54 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 18 2012,9:13 am)
QUOTE
^Are you feeling left out?

Hardly.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 20 2012,4:16 pm
< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2012...workers >

This could possibly be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in the old fishwrap.  :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 20 2012,4:50 pm
^Tom Slacker spent his entire career as a county employee, he hasn't got a clue about the real world or real work!
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 20 2012,8:32 pm

(Moparman @ Mar. 20 2012,4:16 pm)
QUOTE
< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2012...workers >

This could possibly be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in the old fishwrap.  :dunce:

No one has answered yet WHY is it so important to FORCE people who choose NOT to be union members to pay dues (or fee) ???

WHY is it so important to line the pockets of the union?

To BUY politicians?  

Yet you viciously complain about Republicans and corp. greed?!  

What an oxymoron :crazy:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 21 2012,4:54 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 20 2012,4:50 pm)
QUOTE
^Tom Slacker spent his entire career as a county employee, he hasn't got a clue about the real world or real work!

Ex, civil service is where most of the unions are now days. This is where they thrive because collection of dues and compitulation are rubber stamped.

RTW is coming, maybe not this year but it's coming.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 21 2012,4:43 pm
Nobody is forcing anyone to pay anything. If you don't like the pay and benefits provided by a union CBA go somewhere else. It's pretty simple.

Why should someone enjoy all the wage and benefits advantages the union negotiated for them and then turn around and not want to support these efforts?

All you anti worker/pro big business really have nothing to talk about when it comes to buying politicians, heck you guys have it perfected!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 21 2012,8:16 pm
Kinda funny memory came back to me today, The last time UPS went on strike I knew a couple of their drivers that when they weren't on the pickett line they were picking up work at a temp agency. The job they were doing was hauling freight from a staging wharehouse to a customer, freight that was usually hauled by UPS.  :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 21 2012,8:19 pm
So when I was getting my shop wire a few years ago and I paid a union electrician cash on the side, was he making a choice?  :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 21 2012,8:22 pm
So I guess the Railroad is one of the last strongholds of unions,

or is it...?
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 21 2012,9:58 pm
I'd have to agree with Expatriate and Moparman.

You drive through most of those anti-union states you may need a coffee thermos more than ever, they'd kill for Minnesota's economy and list of major companies.  The idea that we should be "more like Iowa or the Dakotas" is bizarre.  We have IBM and Mayo, we have a long list of finance, retail, and manufacturers that are located here despite being a state that respects union shops.  I'd say we've been doing a lot of things better than the "RTW" states.  

The biggest relocation of workers I can think of in recent years was Cummins, and that was neither Union nor in Minnesota.

Compare a list of MN based companies to a list of Iowa or South Dakota companies...  Don't worry, the later list won't take you long to read.   :D

As for the "Right to Work" legislation, here's a few more specific points:

This doesn't target unions overall, it only targets unions that are more liberal than conservative.  Police and fire unions sometimes endorse repubs, so they'll continue to pay their dues.  Much like Wisconsin, they're attacking collective bargaining organizations who often don't vote for them.

Lastly, why has the media let the republicans label the issue as "Right to Work" to begin with?  There's a long list of times that strategists have realized that targeting the middle class isn't popular, unless you try to claim it's about freedom.  That letter to the editor is a perfect example comparing paying union dues to slavery.  Oddly enough these are the same conservatives who will tell you if you don't like a workplace, store, or anything else, "just don't go there."  But when that place happens to be a union shop, they want to change it to suit their needs.

Whew, I'd been holding that rant in for a while.   :;):
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 22 2012,12:52 pm
Good rant Irisheyes. Please don't hold them in anymore lol.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 22 2012,3:21 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:16 pm)
QUOTE
Kinda funny memory came back to me today, The last time UPS went on strike I knew a couple of their drivers that when they weren't on the pickett line they were picking up work at a temp agency. The job they were doing was hauling freight from a staging wharehouse to a customer, freight that was usually hauled by UPS.  :rofl:

And I suppose they stayed at the temp agency because it was so much better than UPS?
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 22 2012,3:24 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:19 pm)
QUOTE
So when I was getting my shop wire a few years ago and I paid a union electrician cash on the side, was he making a choice?  :D

Yes he did make a choice to do a little work on the side. Buy, I'm sure these little side jobs don't pay the bills.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 22 2012,6:08 pm

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,3:21 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:16 pm)
QUOTE
Kinda funny memory came back to me today, The last time UPS went on strike I knew a couple of their drivers that when they weren't on the pickett line they were picking up work at a temp agency. The job they were doing was hauling freight from a staging wharehouse to a customer, freight that was usually hauled by UPS.  :rofl:

And I suppose they stayed at the temp agency because it was so much better than UPS?

Nope, they went back, seemed kinda funny they were actually scabbing against their own union. I this typical union activities???
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 22 2012,6:10 pm

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,3:24 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:19 pm)
QUOTE
So when I was getting my shop wire a few years ago and I paid a union electrician cash on the side, was he making a choice?  :D

Yes he did make a choice to do a little work on the side. Buy, I'm sure these little side jobs don't pay the bills.

I wonder if he took out the unions share of the 500 I paid him? :laugh:
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 22 2012,6:37 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 22 2012,6:08 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,3:21 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:16 pm)
QUOTE
Kinda funny memory came back to me today, The last time UPS went on strike I knew a couple of their drivers that when they weren't on the pickett line they were picking up work at a temp agency. The job they were doing was hauling freight from a staging wharehouse to a customer, freight that was usually hauled by UPS.  :rofl:

And I suppose they stayed at the temp agency because it was so much better than UPS?

Nope, they went back, seemed kinda funny they were actually scabbing against their own union. I this typical union activities???

Nobody was scabbing they were working for a totally different company.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 22 2012,6:40 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 22 2012,6:10 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,3:24 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:19 pm)
QUOTE
So when I was getting my shop wire a few years ago and I paid a union electrician cash on the side, was he making a choice?  :D

Yes he did make a choice to do a little work on the side. Buy, I'm sure these little side jobs don't pay the bills.

I wonder if he took out the unions share of the 500 I paid him? :laugh:

Why would he? He was not working under any union contract. A better question is if he claimed it on his taxes.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2012,4:39 am
^so I can hire a union worker,pay the worker what I see fit, the worker can chose to work for me. Choice, what a wonderful concept. :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2012,4:46 am
I also though it was funny that when the BN engineers went on strike and were picketing the front gate at the St. Paul ramp that the UPS and Yellow drivers would just drive in. This was years ago, maybe there's more solidarity now. :oops:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2012,5:00 am

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,6:37 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 22 2012,6:08 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Mar. 22 2012,3:21 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 21 2012,8:16 pm)
QUOTE
Kinda funny memory came back to me today, The last time UPS went on strike I knew a couple of their drivers that when they weren't on the pickett line they were picking up work at a temp agency. The job they were doing was hauling freight from a staging wharehouse to a customer, freight that was usually hauled by UPS.  :rofl:

And I suppose they stayed at the temp agency because it was so much better than UPS?

Nope, they went back, seemed kinda funny they were actually scabbing against their own union. I this typical union activities???

Nobody was scabbing they were working for a totally different company.

that was hauling freight that was usually hauled by UPS when they weren't on strike.
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 23 2012,1:32 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 23 2012,4:39 am)
QUOTE
^so I can hire a union worker,pay the worker what I see fit, the worker can chose to work for me. Choice, what a wonderful concept. :D

You did not hire anyone. You paid a guy cash to do a small one time project. That's all. Period. There is a big difference between a one time project and a full time job.  Remember the choice was made before he did the work. Just like anyone can make the choice to work for a union shop or not.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 23 2012,3:09 pm
Right to Work has personal impact

< http://www.austindailyherald.com/2012...-375672 >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 23 2012,3:13 pm
Do Right-To-Work states hurt wages?

< http://www.startribune.com/blogs/143975666.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 23 2012,3:21 pm
The Minnesota House fell silent Thursday evening as an attempt to revive the proposed 'right to work' constitutional amendment fizzled.

< http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/143906576.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 23 2012,3:30 pm
kill the Bill
Posted by Moparman on Mar. 23 2012,6:28 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 23 2012,3:21 pm)
QUOTE
The Minnesota House fell silent Thursday evening as an attempt to revive the proposed 'right to work' constitutional amendment fizzled.

< http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/143906576.html >

Let's just hope this race to the bottom garbage bill will finally die!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2012,6:50 pm
^yeah,I'd hate to have to hire non-union people on the side to get my little projects done. :thumbsup:
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 23 2012,11:13 pm
interesting...
A study was done by Bureau of National Affairs which took full-time wage employee earnings for all 50 states & adjusted this data for cost of living with Dr. Nelsons Interstate Cost of Living Index  (weekly earnings for full-time wage and salaried employees are adjusted for the differences on cost of living costs);
the study found that employees in RTW states earned a mean of $675 a week compared to $660 for non-RTW states.

What makes this study so interesting is that Dr. Nelsons Interstate 2001 Cost of Living Index is created by top researchers for the American Federation of Teachers, allies of the AFL-CIO.

unquote
Posted by alcitizens on May 24 2012,5:39 pm
Vote NO to Right to Work(Republicans) in November.. Save the Unions or have a State run by Republicans forever..
Posted by Self-Banished on May 25 2012,5:10 am
^ or more accurately, conservatives. :rockon:
Posted by Common Citizen on May 25 2012,7:10 am
Vote yes Right to Work in November.  Let the employee decide.
Posted by hymiebravo on May 25 2012,7:18 am
Letting every voter who shows up at the polls decide isn't really letting the employee decide.
Posted by Expatriate on May 25 2012,7:34 am
Right to work is dead but not those who tried to push this oppressive legislation down the worker’s throat, it’s time to bury the Republican Party once and for all, they’ve been on the Hoover path every time they get elected, trickle down or voodoo economics have almost collapsed the country every time these goofballs get in office...

Capitalism works on consumers, that’s trickle up not down you bozos, do you think my company is going to build a new plant without customers to purchase our product..Geeze you guys are dumb...
Republican’s keep selling that same old tired pitch about trickle down while they attack the worker on every conceivable level, hey dummies the worker is the customer, when you hurt the customer you kill the economy!!
Posted by Expatriate on May 25 2012,7:58 am
Posted by Self-Banished on May 25 2012,8:52 am
I vote, I actually work(unlike a union thug) and I believe the unions are going to get their clock cleaned this November. :D
Posted by Moparman on May 25 2012,5:23 pm
You don't work, your a truck driver.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 25 2012,5:53 pm
^shhhh, I'm trying to keep that a secret. :D
Posted by hymiebravo on May 26 2012,8:17 am

(Self-Banished @ May 25 2012,8:52 am)
QUOTE
I vote, I actually work(unlike a union thug) and I believe the unions are going to get their clock cleaned this November. :D

Did you even read any of the words in Expatriate's posts?

Instead of voter I.D. legislation: They should promote some type of  reading comprehension tests for voters.

If you can't pass it, you can't vote.

Even if they set the standard bar real low. You'd never be allowed to vote.

One less terrorist at the polls.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 26 2012,1:09 pm
^or even an IQ standard, that way you'd never get to vote. :dunce:
Posted by hymiebravo on May 26 2012,1:42 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 26 2012,1:09 pm)
QUOTE
^or even an IQ standard, that way you'd never get to vote. :dunce:

I know you're not really bright enough to be funny.

But that is pretty amusing coming from the likes of you.  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
Posted by irisheyes on May 27 2012,4:33 pm
The video on the previous page is one of the best I've seen on the subject.  The executive keeps asking what unions have done for "us", and he keeps getting plenty of great answers, but he finally shows what he really means.  Like many companies, his accountants or stock analysts are probably telling him a lot more cream can rise to the top and a lot more crap can roll down hill if he gets rid of those unions.

I'll have a disclaimer, things shouldn't be viewed in binary terms, unions don't have to be EVERYWHERE.  There are plenty of places that do terrific without collective bargaining.  I just don't think we should attack collective bargaining rights for the places where that isn't the case, and collective bargaining is still important to many.

Minnesota does better than most states in a variety of economic indicators.  Seems like other states should be following our lead instead of us deciding we want to take a step down to be more like them.

Common Citizen:
QUOTE
Vote yes Right to Work in November.  Let the employee decide.


They're already deciding that, they decide when they work at a union shop versus a non-union one.

The above shows the dissonance with conservatives; if it was ANY other subject we were on besides unions the answer would be "if you don't like it, leave."  But if we're talking about collective bargaining, the rhetoric changes.  Instead we're being told that if the union person doesn't like being in a union shop, the law should be changed to suit her/his interests.  Not to be non-union, they'll still take advantage of what collective bargaining brings, the distinction will be that they'll get that AND simply stop paying their dues.

Long story short, vote yes if you envy the economic powerhouse of Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and the impressive wage and benefit package of the states that make up for former Confederacy.  One day we too can be mocked for our poor dental hygiene and use of plumbing fixtures as yard ornaments.   :sarcasm:

For everyone else, vote NO on all amendments this November.   :peaceout:
Posted by Moparman on May 27 2012,7:20 pm
^ Amen!
Posted by Common Citizen on May 27 2012,9:55 pm
You may want to read this < My Webpage >

nuff said...
Posted by grassman on May 27 2012,10:36 pm

(irisheyes @ May 27 2012,4:33 pm)
QUOTE
Long story short, vote yes if you envy the economic powerhouse of Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and the impressive wage and benefit package of the states that make up for former Confederacy.  One day we too can be mocked for our poor dental hygiene and use of plumbing fixtures as yard ornaments.   :sarcasm:

For everyone else, vote NO on all amendments this November.   :peaceout:

That is why they call it the tooth brush, they only had one tooth. Fuller Brush Company.
LOL  :laugh: C.C. go out and get a real job and produce something!
Posted by Moparman on May 28 2012,12:28 am

(Common Citizen @ May 27 2012,9:55 pm)
QUOTE
You may want to read this < My Webpage >

nuff said...

Was this "study" paid for by the Koch brothers? BHI is nothing but a mouthpiece for the anti-working man, pro low wage, no benefits providing crowd.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2012,5:48 am
^seems you always hate it when there are two sides of a coin.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 28 2012,10:05 am
^ At least he's not the self-appointed Limey brain trust of the forum...
Posted by Moparman on May 28 2012,10:37 am

(Self-Banished @ May 28 2012,5:48 am)
QUOTE
^seems you always hate it when there are two sides of a coin.

I just hate the side that tries to take money out of the working mans pocket. You know, the people who buy the stuff you "independents" move around.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 28 2012,11:22 am

(Moparman @ May 28 2012,10:37 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ May 28 2012,5:48 am)
QUOTE
^seems you always hate it when there are two sides of a coin.

I just hate the side that tries to take money out of the working mans pocket. You know, the people who buy the stuff you "independents" move around.

What do you frelling want? Capitalism without greed??  :dunce:

Good luck with all that...
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2012,3:23 pm
Independents buy stuff too. There's a he'll of alot more non union folks out there than are union types.

So what'sthe deal with the CP Rail strike?
Posted by Common Citizen on May 28 2012,4:02 pm

(grassman @ May 27 2012,10:36 pm)
QUOTE
LOL  :laugh: C.C. go out and get a real job and produce something!

I produce money for family's that have had their lives shattered.  What do you produce?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2012,4:05 pm

(Botto 82 @ May 28 2012,10:05 am)
QUOTE
^ At least he's not the self-appointed Limey brain trust of the forum...

???
Posted by grassman on May 29 2012,1:16 pm

(Common Citizen @ May 28 2012,4:02 pm)
QUOTE

(grassman @ May 27 2012,10:36 pm)
QUOTE
LOL  :laugh: C.C. go out and get a real job and produce something!

I produce money for family's that have had their lives shattered.  What do you produce?

That's what banks used to be for. Now it has all been turned upside down so they HAVE to come see you.
I give them a great looking yard. Something they could do themselves but would rather I did. :thumbsup:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 29 2012,1:50 pm
^ so you're a lawnboy, just bustin' your chops a little. :D I've always admired a well manicured yard. :rockon:
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 11 2012,8:29 am
More Republican sponsored Corporate legislation in Michigan.

If it is passed and signed into law, Michigan would become the 24th right-to-work state with Union busting legislation!
Democratic lawmakers and union backers concede they have little chance of stopping the tide, given the Republican-dominated Legislature and GOP Gov. Rick Snyder who has pledged to sign the measure into law.

~ Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer gar nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 11 2012,9:49 am
^ no, they'll become the 24th state that will allow a person the choice to be free or join an overbearing, oppressive union.

Detroit, the town a union destroyed
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 11 2012,10:06 am
In your case it’s the Right to Stupidity or No Rights at Work law the Republitards are passing!

Your karma is going to bite you in the ass, when we don’t have the money to buy you’ll
go broke too stupid!

~Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer gar nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 11 2012,11:09 am

(Expatriate @ Dec. 11 2012,10:06 am)
QUOTE
In your case it’s the Right to Stupidity or No Rights at Work law the Republitards are passing!

Your karma is going to bite you in the ass, when we don’t have the money to buy you’ll
go broke too stupid!

~Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer gar nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.

Wow, being called stupid by a low-brow such as yourself, I'm deeply hurt :sarcasm:  :rofl:

A little worried? This might become a trend and hopefully so. Union dues are pretty much the same as paying protection money to the mob.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2012,12:15 pm
My favorite is the Teacher's Union calling in sick to join the picket lines.

Did you know that only 7% of Detroit 8th graders can read proficiently at that level?  You see?  It's not really about the kids...it's all about the adults.

I think the real reason unions are afraid of Right-To-Work laws is because they won't be able to make the case that their services add value to their members...and then there goes the money.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 11 2012,12:30 pm
I guess some them are threatening violence now, saying there will be blood.

Oh My! :dunce:
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm
Cool! Minimum wage for all!
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 11 2012,5:11 pm
Arbeit Macht Frei...
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2012,5:58 pm

(Moparman @ Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Cool! Minimum wage for all!

One thing about the law is if the workers do end up making less (like you assume), they will have made that choice on their own with out being the target of some union thug shake down.

And if they can't sell that to their membership base then the unions deserve to die.
Posted by Santorini on Dec. 11 2012,7:15 pm

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 11 2012,5:11 pm)
QUOTE
Arbeit Macht Frei...

Exactly what is wrong with voluntary union membership?
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
If you want to be union then pay your dues!
If your coworker doesnt want to be respresented he/she shouldnt be forced.
Whats the problem :dunno:
Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 12 2012,7:09 am
If I read this right. The people of MICH. voted for this NOT the replub-la- tards. So get your facts right before you blame someone.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,8:09 am

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2012,5:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Cool! Minimum wage for all!

One thing about the law is if the workers do end up making less (like you assume), they will have made that choice on their own with out being the target of some union thug shake down.

And if they can't sell that to their membership base then the unions deserve to die.

So thats what they are talking about with all this workers right to choose stuff. The choice to work for less. You know the corporate thug shakedown.

If a company cannot manage to pay a living wage than they deserve to die also.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,8:19 am

(Santorini @ Dec. 11 2012,7:15 pm)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 11 2012,5:11 pm)
QUOTE
Arbeit Macht Frei...

Exactly what is wrong with voluntary union membership?
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
If you want to be union then pay your dues!
If your coworker doesnt want to be respresented he/she shouldnt be forced.
Whats the problem :dunno:

The problem is that the freeloader who doesn't pay their dues expects the same representation.  Just like folks not paying taxes but still benefitting from govt. services.

A person has several to chances to choose to work in a union shop before they pay a penny in dues, when they apply, when they accept an offer, and any day during their probationary period. If they cannot accept the union representing them thy have the choice to leave at any time.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,8:23 am
If this is such a wonderful deal for workers and unions why were the police and fire fighters unions exempt?
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 12 2012,8:31 am

(Santorini @ Dec. 11 2012,7:15 pm)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 11 2012,5:11 pm)
QUOTE
Arbeit Macht Frei...

Exactly what is wrong with voluntary union membership?
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
If you want to be union then pay your dues!
If your coworker doesnt want to be respresented he/she shouldnt be forced.
Whats the problem :dunno:

That option already exists you don’t have to belong to the union but the company still takes what’s called fair share from your pay this money is less than union dues and goes to charity, it’s federal law.
These state laws are out right union busting doing away with check off dues collection and the right to collectively bargain etc..

If you had the opportunity to get a good paying union job with health & retirement why wouldn’t you want to participate in the union, unions are democratic organizations almost everything is on a vote basis of those who participate in meetings, all officers are elected to term including the unit president, they're local fellow workers.

Whatever you’re hearing from corporate media or the am radio crowd about unions are lies to divide the workers.

Botto ~Arbeit Macht Frei = (Work Brings Freedom) it was the sign over the gates of Auschwitz.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 12 2012,8:45 am

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 12 2012,7:09 am)
QUOTE
If I read this right. The people of MICH. voted for this NOT the replub-la- tards. So get your facts right before you blame someone.

Lepew, perhaps you’d like to enlighten me, but if you’re talking Michigan the right to work law was two separate bills sponsored by republicans voted on by a republican held house & senate signed in to law by a republican governor. It wasn't a ballot vote in Michigan but it will be in 2014!
Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 12 2012,9:30 am
you have to remeber the unions started it buy trying to get a law past that the gov. or anyone else couldnt undo union rights. but the it failed the VOTE of the people. EVEN the union people did :finger: nt want it
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 12 2012,9:41 am

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 12 2012,7:09 am)
QUOTE
you have to remeber the unions started it buy trying to get a law past that the gov. or anyone else couldnt undo union rights. but the it failed the VOTE of the people. EVEN the union people did nt want it



If I read this right. The people of MICH. voted for this NOT the replub-la- tards. So get your facts right before you blame someone.

Guess that’s as close as you’ll come to admitting you didn’t have your facts straight! :dunce:
Posted by grassman on Dec. 12 2012,9:48 am
Maybe there should be no such thing as a hiring business either. Aren't they charging for somebody to get a job? Express Services, they take a percent of your earnings to get a job.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 12 2012,10:14 am
Than don't work for them^  :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 12 2012,10:21 am

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,8:09 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2012,5:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Cool! Minimum wage for all!

One thing about the law is if the workers do end up making less (like you assume), they will have made that choice on their own with out being the target of some union thug shake down.

And if they can't sell that to their membership base then the unions deserve to die.

So thats what they are talking about with all this workers right to choose stuff. The choice to work for less. You know the corporate thug shakedown.

If a company cannot manage to pay a living wage than they deserve to die also.

And when the company dies because of excessive union wages and procedures they move the company overseas then ship the product here in containers the I vet to haul it,

COOL! :cool:
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 12 2012,1:23 pm

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,8:19 am)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Dec. 11 2012,7:15 pm)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 11 2012,5:11 pm)
QUOTE
Arbeit Macht Frei...

Exactly what is wrong with voluntary union membership?
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
If you want to be union then pay your dues!
If your coworker doesnt want to be respresented he/she shouldnt be forced.
Whats the problem :dunno:

The problem is that the freeloader who doesn't pay their dues expects the same representation.  Just like folks not paying taxes but still benefitting from govt. services.

A person has several to chances to choose to work in a union shop before they pay a penny in dues, when they apply, when they accept an offer, and any day during their probationary period. If they cannot accept the union representing them thy have the choice to leave at any time.

First of all the Right-To-Work law does not alter the right of employees to organize a labor union and negotiate for better wages and benefits with their employers collectively.

Of Michigan's top 25 largest private sector union locals, 24.1% of expenditures actually goes toward representing workers.  The rest goes towards benefits, political activity, and general overhead.

Total expenditures:  $130,767,895
Representation expenditures:  $31,515,312

Is it any wonder the donk pols and the union bosses want mandatory membership?  It's obvious it would hit them personally in the pocket book and their political campaigns.

This < study > highlights the fact that states with Right-To-Work laws have less debt, higher employment, and faster compensation growth.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 12 2012,3:47 pm
^'yep, big 'ol cash cow for the union bosses and the donks.

Love the avatar,
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,4:19 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 12 2012,10:14 am)
QUOTE
Than don't work for them^  :dunce:

Well then don't work in a union shop. Nobody is forced to work in a union enviroment free will, free choice at its best.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,4:42 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 12 2012,10:21 am)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,8:09 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2012,5:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Cool! Minimum wage for all!

One thing about the law is if the workers do end up making less (like you assume), they will have made that choice on their own with out being the target of some union thug shake down.

And if they can't sell that to their membership base then the unions deserve to die.

So thats what they are talking about with all this workers right to choose stuff. The choice to work for less. You know the corporate thug shakedown.

If a company cannot manage to pay a living wage than they deserve to die also.

And when the company dies because of excessive union wages and procedures they move the company overseas then ship the product here in containers the I vet to haul it,

COOL! :cool:

And when a company dies because it was grossly mismanaged its totally acceptable to give the ones responsible big bonuses?

Ya that's really cool!
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,4:50 pm

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,8:23 am)
QUOTE
If this is such a wonderful deal for workers and unions why were the police and fire fighters unions exempt?

I bet the cops and fire fighters are pi$$ed they were left out and denied their  "freedom" of choice"  :sarcasm:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 12 2012,7:20 pm

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,4:42 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 12 2012,10:21 am)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 12 2012,8:09 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2012,5:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 11 2012,3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Cool! Minimum wage for all!

One thing about the law is if the workers do end up making less (like you assume), they will have made that choice on their own with out being the target of some union thug shake down.

And if they can't sell that to their membership base then the unions deserve to die.

So thats what they are talking about with all this workers right to choose stuff. The choice to work for less. You know the corporate thug shakedown.

If a company cannot manage to pay a living wage than they deserve to die also.

And when the company dies because of excessive union wages and procedures they move the company overseas then ship the product here in containers the I vet to haul it,

COOL! :cool:

And when a company dies because it was grossly mismanaged its totally acceptable to give the ones responsible big bonuses?

Ya that's really cool!

Well Mopar most executives negotiate a contract before they take a position with a company. When I sign on with a company I negotiate my contract and I know you're gonna say "I've got a contract too". Apparently the people that negotiate some of these union contracts aren't worth a sh!t. Contracts  are usually negotiated from a position of strength or talent or experience. So I guess it all comes down to how much you have to offer.

Work coming my way because a company was being held hostage by a union? Cool as it gets. :cool:
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 12 2012,7:57 pm
Labor contracts are negotiated by BOTH sides. Most of the time it's management that cannot hold up their end so they ask for, and get, concessions, not once, not twice, but three times. Finally after failing yet again they ask for a forth concession which they don't get they gut the company, destroy lives, and collect a bonus for failure. And people wonder what's wrong with this country.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 12 2012,8:59 pm
Yes, contracts are negotiated from both sides, that's the meaning of the word. I agree that sometimes management sucks but the union(worker) mchoose to deal with said management. There are no sure things in life and management cannot see into the future. So if management  an't make a go of it would you have the owner or owners of a company to lose the whole company?

You sound as if you still smartin' over the hostess deal, that's water under the bridge and so is the Michigan deal. Enjoy what you have for now. Your company could be in the works for a new plant some day  and ten miles south of you, as far as the labor thing goes, is much more attractive.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,1:18 am
I guess they can see just far enough ahead to see their guaranteed bonus. No risk, all reward! Tell me what incentive do they have to even do a half a$$ed job? At least the working stiffs had the balls to risk it all for what they believed in.

So one more time... Why are cops and firefighters unions left out of this great legislation? If its so pro worker and pro freedom it seems they would be pretty upset to be left out.

Btw.... Our facility is very profitable, secure, and expanding.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,4:37 am
^ probably because the cannot go on strike.
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 13 2012,5:43 am

(Moparman @ Dec. 13 2012,1:18 am)
QUOTE
So one more time... Why are cops and firefighters unions left out of this great legislation? If its so pro worker and pro freedom it seems they would be pretty upset to be left out.

Because there's a chance cops and firemen might vote republican, they don't want to bust up the unions that might support them.   :;):

Occasionally cop and firefighter unions will endorse republicans also.  It's those damn teachers and manufacturing unions that favor democrats (for good reason).  And Michigan currently, just like Wisconsin previously wants to punish those unions for exercising their rights.

S.B.
QUOTE
probably because the cannot go on strike.

So, if they can't strike they don't have "a right to work"?  I thought you guys were saying this was about "right to work" and freedom of choice.   ???

CC:
QUOTE
highlights the fact that states with Right-To-Work laws have less debt, higher employment, and faster compensation growth.

I'm sure there's a new Koch front group every month that's churning out new anti-union stats.

We don't need stats from a lobbyist or FOX (yeah, that's redundant), the reality is in our backyard.  Drive through Minnesota and then spend some time in Iowa or Nebraska, South Dakota, etc.  Minnesota enjoys much better unemployment rates and pay then the anti-union states.  With the exception of the boom in North Dakota, but if you find gold, diamonds, or oil in your backyard it changes things.

Take a tour of Nebraska and Iowa, but grab the No-Doz because it's going to be a LONG ride.   :D  Every hour between cornfields we'll see another Casey's General Store. :rofl:

We've got cornfields and factories, and in between we've got IBM, Mayo Clinic, Hormel corporate office, in addition to a bunch of other very large corporations headquartered around the skyscrapers of the Twin Cities.  The red states should be taking lessons from Minnesota on how to grow an economy.   :thumbsup:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,6:46 am
^ oh yes! Hormel, now there's a testament to union superiority!
Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 13 2012,7:41 am
The city of AUSTIN cannt fart without HORMELS okay?
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2012,8:21 am
Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union member:
Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 13 2012,8:35 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,6:46 am)
QUOTE
^ oh yes! Hormel, now there's a testament to union superiority!

Pay attention. He was debunking CC's claim about RTW states having better economic growth, not talking about union superiority.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,8:49 am
Pay attention, I was being sarcastic.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,8:53 am

(Expatriate @ Dec. 13 2012,8:21 am)
QUOTE
Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union member:
Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

Wow, none of these either apply to me or I pay them myself.

And on top of that I still make far more than a union driver.

Life is good :)
Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 13 2012,9:11 am
All those bennies do is to make sure all the lazy a$$ keep thie jobs. Im not union and I make out okay Im retired
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,9:18 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,4:37 am)
QUOTE
^ probably because the cannot go on strike.

How about if legislation is rammed threw to sterilize their union? Then cut their wages by a third and gut their retirement and pensions. What's good for one group is good for all, right? But, I suppose its ok for a group of cowardly politicians to pick and choose which group of workers to go after.

Just think about how many new cops and firefighters would be attracted to come work and finally enjoy " freedom".

To use your own terms, maybe they need to "grow a set" and include ALL unions.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,9:36 am
^ yep, growing a set is a good thing. If conditions aren't what they should be then there'll be less applicants for a job, either conditions would have to improve or compensation would have tomb increased. This, once again, is called "paying what the market will bear" :D
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,9:41 am

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 13 2012,9:11 am)
QUOTE
All those bennies do is to make sure all the lazy a$$ keep thie jobs. Im not union and I make out okay Im retired

So your claiming that after 42 years of union membership none of these "benefits" ever applied to you?
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,9:43 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,9:36 am)
QUOTE
^ yep, growing a set is a good thing. If conditions aren't what they should be then there'll be less applicants for a job, either conditions would have to improve or compensation would have tomb increased. This, once again, is called "paying what the market will bear" :D

So in other words you can't answer the question?
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 13 2012,10:06 am
Why are the contracts negotiated by the execs and management the only ones that ever get honored when the ship hits the fan? :angry:

Oh gee wiz, I ran the company into the ground, screwed everyone, the only thing left is to pick up my bonus check and I am out of here.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,10:32 am

(Moparman @ Dec. 13 2012,9:43 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,9:36 am)
QUOTE
^ yep, growing a set is a good thing. If conditions aren't what they should be then there'll be less applicants for a job, either conditions would have to improve or compensation would have tomb increased. This, once again, is called "paying what the market will bear" :D

So in other words you can't answer the question?

In other words, I did answer the question.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,11:07 am

(Pretzel Logic @ Dec. 13 2012,10:06 am)
QUOTE
Why are the contracts negotiated by the execs and management the only ones that ever get honored when the ship hits the fan? :angry:

Oh gee wiz, I ran the company into the ground, screwed everyone, the only thing left is to pick up my bonus check and I am out of here.

So I guess you're what's called an armchair executive?

Wah, you didn't run the company very well :sarcasm:

Wah, you didn't foresee upcoming problems :sarcasm:

Wah, now what am I and my ten kids supposed to do? :sarcasm:

Bitch, snivel, and whine. :dunce:

Take a little responsibility for your own life why don't you? :flame:
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 13 2012,1:27 pm
Ah sb,  I know in between swigs of Mountain Dew and shifting gears, you are just trying to pull someone's chain when you are not peeing in a milk jug at the red lights.  You are still my favorite troll if I had one.  Just keep her between the ditches mudflap. :D
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 13 2012,1:47 pm

(Pretzel Logic @ Dec. 13 2012,10:06 am)
QUOTE
Why are the contracts negotiated by the execs and management the only ones that ever get honored when the ship hits the fan? :angry:

Oh gee wiz, I ran the company into the ground, screwed everyone, the only thing left is to pick up my bonus check and I am out of here.

When are you people going to admit that your money hungry union leaders don't care anymore for their members than the money hungry corporations care for their employees.

It's like the man calling his wife to tell her how much he loves her while laying in his mistresses bed.  

Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 13 2012,2:06 pm
Soon as you quit defending corporate pukes.  You are right.  Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,3:08 pm
The sad thing is old PL thinks I'm trolling, I actually truly believe what I post.

Also, I don't pee in a milk jug and I don't drink soda.
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 13 2012,3:21 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,3:08 pm)
QUOTE
The sad thing is old PL thinks I'm trolling, I actually truly believe what I post.

Can't be no ones that stupid. :p
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,3:25 pm
Look in the mirror dumbass. :dunce:
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 13 2012,4:18 pm
SB defends this post-Reagan-era B.S. as though he benefits from it somehow. He doesn't seem to realize that even he would be making a lot more for his hard work than he is now, if only the top 1% wasn't allowed to rewrite the rules to their favor all the while.

What's happened to the American worker since 1980 only benefits the rich, dude. And you ain't part of that group, and I doubt you ever will be. Wake up.  :p
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2012,6:38 pm
Well let's see, none of my customers are poor. They also pay the price I ask. I don't see a problem here.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,7:38 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,10:32 am)
QUOTE

(Moparman @ Dec. 13 2012,9:43 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,9:36 am)
QUOTE
^ yep, growing a set is a good thing. If conditions aren't what they should be then there'll be less applicants for a job, either conditions would have to improve or compensation would have tomb increased. This, once again, is called "paying what the market will bear" :D

So in other words you can't answer the question?

In other words, I did answer the question.

No you did not.

I'll ask again... Why not include ALL unions?

Your "market will bear" crap is just that, a load of crap. Productivity and markets have skyrocketed while wages have regressed.
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 13 2012,8:31 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 13 2012,11:07 am)
QUOTE

(Pretzel Logic @ Dec. 13 2012,10:06 am)
QUOTE
Why are the contracts negotiated by the execs and management the only ones that ever get honored when the ship hits the fan? :angry:

Oh gee wiz, I ran the company into the ground, screwed everyone, the only thing left is to pick up my bonus check and I am out of here.

So I guess you're what's called an armchair executive?

Wah, you didn't run the company very well :sarcasm:

Wah, you didn't foresee upcoming problems :sarcasm:

Wah, now what am I and my ten kids supposed to do? :sarcasm:

Bitch, snivel, and whine. :dunce:

Take a little responsibility for your own life why don't you? :flame:

Those things are the executives FRICKIN JOB!!!!!!

It's the executive who needs to take responsibility for his/ her failures. Not fail miserably and get rewarded. But, I suppose they cannot get their precious egos bruised.

Like I said no risk, all reward.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 14 2012,5:32 am
^ sounds to me like you want to be a tended sheep. All content, no worries, all fat and happy. I guess I've learned different. I watch what goes on with companies I deal with, I listen for rumors, watch spending habit and I've been doing it so long it's second nature. I have friends in my line of work who were blind to these signs and end up losing thousands of dollars. Could it happen to me? Sure it could but I try to minimize my risk.

A lot of times these executives are hired as a stop gap measure to try to head off failure and they sometimes won't sign on without a few guarentees. And I've seen it where piss-poor management drags a company down the dark hole. I've just accepted (and I don't particularly like it either) that they're going to feather there nest some.

But quit whining about it, watch your surroundins, pay attention. Jobs for life are a thing of the past, it you do have one be thankful.

Just remember,

No one owes you sh!t. :D
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 14 2012,7:24 am
No not a tended sheep. My point of view is my employer is lucky to have me as an employee. My work makes the company alot more money than they pay me.  And I do not have a problem with that, my pay and benefits package is very rewarding. I'll have this job as long I choose to. If I want to move on I will, I have never had a problem finding a good job and I always have a couple other irons in the fire. So no, I don't need to be tended.

You preach about no there being no guarantees in life but yet you find it perfectly acceptable for a so called stop gap executive to have a guaranteed payday even if they do not do their job. No risk, all reward!
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 14 2012,8:05 am
I'm sure you're a good employee MP, sounds like I'd like to have a few like you working on my dock. But as I said, the day of lifetime jobs has been over for quite awhile. Sometimes companies are sold on a whim and things change. Always keep your guard up and other "irons in the fire". :D
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 14 2012,10:23 pm
No offense, but you probably could not afford me.  :D   I don't worry about a "lifetime" job, heck I wouldn't want to do the same thing for that long anyway. My biggest concern is if there is going to be any good jobs left after big business and their politician lap dogs continue on this campaign to kill the middle class.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 15 2012,6:26 am
^ that's funny, a friend of mine got me a trucking job, I told him thanks and that I wasn't going to drive truck the rest of my life. That was 30 years ago. :blush:
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 18 2012,7:56 am

(Pretzel Logic @ Dec. 13 2012,2:06 pm)
QUOTE
Soon as you quit defending corporate pukes.  You are right.  Ignorance is bliss.


(Common Citizen @ Dec. 13 2012,1:47 pm)
QUOTE
When are you people going to admit that your money hungry union leaders don't care anymore for their members than the money hungry corporations care for their employees.

Did you even read my post before you responded?  :dunce:
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 18 2012,9:30 am
Yes I did.  You're peoples direction is always, that the Unions are worse than the the Company.  I am sure if there was a union to protect you from the unscrupulous investors, who drop bags of money at your door, :sarcasm:  you would be a flag waving, card carrying member.


I have worked at Union and Non Union.  I agree with most of the negatives about Unions at the upper levels, but to the guy in the trench they are all positives.  That all union dues magically find their way into the democrats coffers is pretty stupid. Ditto!
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 18 2012,10:30 am
^ but they do end up in Lib pockets :dunce:

C'mon PL, say "baa" for me.
Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 18 2012,11:37 am
It would be interesting if when someone took a union job, they were able to designate whether or not any portion of their specific union dues could be used to fund political parties or organizations. Would unions be okay with that? If they're truly "just looking out for the worker", would it matter if some union members did not want to help fund the same political candidates that the union endorsed?
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Dec. 18 2012,3:17 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 18 2012,10:30 am)
QUOTE
^ but they do end up in Lib pockets :dunce:

C'mon PL, say "baa" for me.

Not sure what your infatuation with the farm animals is/are Capn' Crunch :p     Maybe a new thread? :popcorn:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 18 2012,6:13 pm
^ it's what I grew up with and comparisons come to mind. :D
Posted by Moparman on Dec. 18 2012,7:07 pm
If you don't like being in a union shop. Don't work there it's your choice. How is that such a hard concept to understand? It's really sad that the republicans are trying to destroy that choice by calling it "right to work" or "freedom". What's  even sadder is that there are naive lemmings out there buying that tripe hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 21 2012,7:54 am
Boehner's Plan B is a bust, the Republican Party goes over the cliff.
They couldn’t even agree to go back to Clinton era tax on those making over a million!
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 21 2012,8:34 am
^ I guess his fellow congressmen decided to not compromise their principles
Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 22 2012,7:25 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 21 2012,8:34 am)
QUOTE
^ I guess his fellow congressmen decided to not compromise their principles

If most americans acted like our elected wonders with all of their principles cast in stone, marriage would be obsolete... :p ...ned
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,7:38 am
Hey Ned, if you really want to get married you can always go to Iowa, it' legal there now.

It's just kinda nice to see some of them( though it probably won't last) stiffen their spine and grow a set, I saw yesterday where the NRA did the same, good for them. :cool:
Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 22 2012,3:18 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,7:38 am)
QUOTE
Hey Ned, if you really want to get married you can always go to Iowa, it' legal there now.

It's just kinda nice to see some of them( though it probably won't last) stiffen their spine and grow a set, I saw yesterday where the NRA did the same, good for them. :cool:

Been married to the same woman for over 50 years and I had a set before you even knew what to call them!!!!!!  "BOY"....Been huntting since before the NRA was even talked about or needed by limp wristed conservatives, who have no mind of their own....ned
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,4:28 pm
^^ :rofl:  :rofl: Boy, that's good! The NRA was started by white folks promoting gun ownership for blacks during reconstruction after the civil war. Wow, you've been around a long-ass time. :rofl:

Limp wristed conservatives :rofl:stop it, you're killing me :rofl:
Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 23 2012,5:55 am
Lots of dead children to keep assault weapons legal for NR members, they are the true cost of gun freedom...

I guess seeing as how the gun rights people want police at every door in schools, massive taxes on guns and ammo will have to pay the costs of having protection at every school door...How can it be fair any other way?????
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 23 2012,6:20 am
^ I'm not a member of the NRA, I belong to the JPFO, people who really understand gun registration and confiscation. :D
Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 24 2012,6:21 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 23 2012,6:20 am)
QUOTE
^ I'm not a member of the NRA, I belong to the JPFO, people who really understand gun registration and confiscation. :D

And what pray tell is JPFO? Is it only for nra wantabees?... :p ...ned
Posted by grassman on Dec. 24 2012,6:30 am
Jedi Police From Ork. :laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 24 2012,7:33 am
^ that was good :D

What Ned? Google doesn't work?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership?

If anyone knows about gun grabbers it' these people.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 27 2012,11:20 am

(grassman @ Dec. 24 2012,6:30 am)
QUOTE
Jedi Police From Ork. :laugh:

:beer:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 04 2015,10:12 am
The problem with Republican legislation is who gets the goodies and who’s stuck with the tab.

For example, they’re repealing part of the Dodd-Frank Act designed to stop Wall Street from using other peoples’ money to support its gambling addiction, as the Street did before the near-meltdown of 2008.

Dodd-Frank had barred banks from using commercial deposits that belong to you and me and other people, and which are insured by the government, to make the kind of risky bets that got the Street into trouble and forced taxpayers to bail it out.

Republican legislators managed to get rid of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and they are already repealing the Dodd-Frank Act! :frusty:
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 04 2015,11:33 am
Another government feel good law that does little to protect the consumer.  It created a sh!t ton of government jobs though. And since when do you side with Wall Street anyway?  Last I heard they actually support the current law.

Maybe the government should spend more time enforcing and overseeing the financial markets with the agencies they already had instead of creating new ones just to make people like you feel better.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 04 2015,10:11 pm
^To many Grainbelts or a reading comprehension problem kid? Repealing Dodd Frank puts US right back in the to big to fail mode!
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 05 2015,7:53 am

(Expatriate @ Jan. 04 2015,10:11 pm)
QUOTE
^To many Grainbelts or a reading comprehension problem kid? Repealing Dodd Frank puts US right back in the to big to fail mode!

I give you my opinion and this is the best response you can come up with?  Some real deep thinking Expat.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 05 2015,10:23 am
Just because a law that keeps them from abusing the system has been taken away, doesn't mean they will abuse again. I am sure they have learned their lesson, with all of the jail time that  was handed out. :;):
Posted by pepi-lapew on Jan. 08 2015,10:02 am
No worse than the idiot in the white house wanting to take and use every ones 401k money and give you I.O.U.s for it. So when you retire you can spend the I.O.U.s?
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 20 2015,6:28 pm
Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL

Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues.
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote.

Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no."
You got to wonder how many of these good old boy Republicans have their fingers in the cookie jar on this deal! They'd sellout the environment and the American worker to line their own pockets!

< http://www.dailykos.com/story...All=yes >
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 20 2015,7:26 pm
Fiest comrade Expat, I have to admire you quoting from the Daily Kos.  :oops:   Why would the government press their fingers on who and where this oil ay be sold?  Ever heard of a free market?  Selling to the highest bidder a crime now?  You're reprehensible.

Again with the force purchasing of where and who they are required to purchase their steel pipeline from?  Good God.  Perhaps the pipe industry needs to make it worth purchasing American or North American piping.  Did you think that cost effectiveness has no meaning?  If three foreign countries submit bids lower than American corporations, they should be bound to purchase the more costly bid?

I sincerely hope you think up better excuses next time you plan to slam this project that will happen under Bambino's objections.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 20 2015,7:41 pm

(pepi-lapew @ Jan. 08 2015,10:02 am)
QUOTE
No worse than the idiot in the white house wanting to take and use every ones 401k money and give you I.O.U.s for it. So when you retire you can spend the I.O.U.s?

Wow. I see the coming of the new year made you no less dense.

Inflation erodes savings. The Fed's willy-nilly runaway printing of fiat currency erodes savings. About all you can blame Obama for in this is his appointment to Secretary of the Treasury, and, last time I looked, the last God-knows-how-many Presidents have installed a very bank-friendly dude to that Cabinet position. Then there's Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall, which removed the firewall between commercial banks (savings) and investment banks.

But go ahead an keep oversimplifying things to fit your two-digit-IQ worldview. Some of us need the laughs.  :D
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 20 2015,7:44 pm

(Expatriate @ Jan. 20 2015,6:28 pm)
QUOTE
Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean  They'd sellout the environment and the American worker to line their own pockets!

And this is new, how, exactly..? :brick:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 20 2015,8:07 pm
@maddog
It’s part of my job to monitor and manage pipelines, mine may be natural gas but these things fail!
The type of pipeline XL is proposing is far more apt to fail on a regular basis, the risk isn’t worth the reward for export oil.
I have no problem with XL servicing northern or midcontinent refineries where risk is offset by reward.

The XL pipeline may be under private ownership today but when the thing goes kaput it will be a taxpayer
superfund cleaning up the mess as the front for the owners files bankruptcy and disappear.

Running this type of dirty pipeline the length of the county puts the US at a certain risk, said risk should come
with qualifications, such as using US made materials, labor, and sale of said product in the US to benefit
it’s citizens. or no F’n deal!
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 20 2015,8:17 pm
There's no benefit in this to anything American. "Shut up and pass it, you Commie" we hear.

F that. If we don't start asking the right questions now, we never will.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 21 2015,7:45 am
Aww, pipelines don't leak, plain and simple.

GLENDIVE, Mont. — Authorities were scrambling to decontaminate a water treatment plant serving 6,000 eastern Montana residents after a cancer-causing component of oil was found downstream of a Yellowstone River pipeline spill.

Up to 50,000 gallons of crude were released in Saturday's spill.

As residents of Glendive lined up at a distribution center to receive bottled water, officials took initial steps Tuesday to decontaminate the city's water treatment plant by adding more activated carbon — a type of charcoal.

If that approach does not work, officials planned to add equipment to the plant that would pre-treat water coming into the facility from an intake beneath the river.

Elevated levels of benzene were found Monday in water samples from the treatment plant serving the agricultural community near the North Dakota border.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director Tom Livers said officials hoped to flush out any remaining contamination from the system and restore it to operation by Thursday.

Scientists from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the benzene levels were above those recommended for long-term consumption, but did not pose a short-term health hazard. Residents were warned not to drink or cook with water from their taps.
Some criticized the timing of Monday's advisory, which came more than two days after the spilled from the 12-inch Poplar pipeline owned by Wyoming-based Bridger Pipeline Co. The spill occurred about 5 miles upstream from the city.

Adding to the frustrations was uncertainty over how long the water warning would last. Also, company and government officials have struggled to come up with an effective way to recover the crude, most of which appears to be trapped beneath the ice-covered Yellowstone River.

A mechanical inspection of the damaged line on Tuesday revealed the breach occurred directly beneath the river, about 50 feet from the south shore, Bridger Pipeline spokesman Bill Salvin said.

The cause remained undetermined.


By Tuesday, oil sheens were reported as far away as Williston, North Dakota, below the Yellowstone's confluence with the Missouri River, officials said.

"It's scary," said 79-year-old Mickey Martini of Glendive. "I don't know how they're going to take care of this."

Martini said she first noticed a smell similar to diesel fuel coming from her tap water Monday night. Officials previously didn't know whether the spill happened beneath the iced-over river or somewhere on the riverbank.

Representatives from the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earlier said preliminary monitoring of the city's water showed no cause for concern. The water treatment plant operated until Sunday afternoon, more than 24 hours after pipeline operator Bridger Pipeline discovered the spill, officials said.


Additional tests were conducted early Monday after residents began complaining of the petroleum- or diesel-like smell from their tap water. That's when the high benzene levels were found.

Benzene in the range of 10 to 15 parts per billion was detected from the city's water, said Paul Peronard with the EPA. Anything above 5 parts per billion is considered a long-term risk, he said.

Peronard acknowledged problems in how officials addressed the city's water supply, including not having the right testing equipment on hand right away to pick up contamination. But Peronard and others involved in the spill response said officials acted based on the best information available.

"Emergencies don't work in a streamlined fashion," said Bob Habeck with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. "It's a process of discovery and response."

Several residents interviewed by The Associated Press said they first heard about the water problems through friends and social media sites, not the official advisory.

"They could have been more on top of it," Whitney Schipman said as she picked up several cases of bottled water for her extended family from a water distribution center. "As soon as there was a spill, they should have told everybody."
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2015,8:06 am
^^^...and trains don't derail :sarcasm:
Posted by grassman on Jan. 21 2015,8:44 am

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 21 2015,8:06 am)
QUOTE
^^^...and trains don't derail :sarcasm:

Sure they do, go unnoticed, no.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2015,8:57 am
There are derailments every day, bad ones 4 to 5 times a year. There are companies that do nothing but service these derailments.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 21 2015,9:06 am
You just never know when gas will explode.

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YGG2i3BGE >


< View on YouTube >
Posted by grassman on Jan. 21 2015,10:33 am
Thank you, I am going to be rich, Beano for Elsie!!! :laugh:

Seriously though, how long can a leak in a pipe go before it is noticed? We are talking thousands of miles of pipe. We can't even keep people from sneaking across a border. Once an aquifer is damaged, there is no fix.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2015,10:52 am
How long before one of Warren Buffets trains does a derailment near or in a populated area.
Ever been to Perham MN? BNSF highball's through the middle of town at 65mph.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 21 2015,12:56 pm
Well, I guess they are both good arguments against transporting oil. Maybe it's time to look at alternative energy a little closer eh? :D  Perham, that's where Kenny's Candy Company is, mmm licorice. :)
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2015,1:31 pm
^^Happy's Potato chips.😄
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 21 2015,3:14 pm
Rich people are in favor of continued dependence on fossil fuels. > You think you could be rich someday. > You're in favor of continued dependence on fossil fuels. > And so on.

Rich people are against tax increases for rich people. > You think you have a chance of being rich someday. > You're against tax increases for the rich.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Even if we tax the shibbit out of rich people, they'll still be rich. And the rest of us will be better off too. Stop falling for that carrot-and-stick scheme that implies that we must coddle the rich, 'cause that could be us, someday.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 22 2015,11:22 am

(Expatriate @ Jan. 20 2015,8:07 pm)
QUOTE
@maddog
It’s part of my job to monitor and manage pipelines, mine may be natural gas but these things fail!
The type of pipeline XL is proposing is far more apt to fail on a regular basis, the risk isn’t worth the reward for export oil.
I have no problem with XL servicing northern or midcontinent refineries where risk is offset by reward.

The XL pipeline may be under private ownership today but when the thing goes kaput it will be a taxpayer
superfund cleaning up the mess as the front for the owners files bankruptcy and disappear.

Running this type of dirty pipeline the length of the county puts the US at a certain risk, said risk should come
with qualifications, such as using US made materials, labor, and sale of said product in the US to benefit
it’s citizens. or no F’n deal!

I understand there may be risks.  There are with all of them.  That's why monitors and inspectors are necessary.  That's why certain standards are set.  To reduce the chances of leaks.  No matter where something is made, quality standards are to be kept and maintained.  

The same standard.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 22 2015,2:29 pm
How do you feel about all of the "eminent domain" filings over the last couple of years for the Keystone pipeline? Or the 78 year old woman who was arrested for trespassing on her own property and labeled an eco-terrorist by the company?
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 22 2015,8:27 pm
And that's another thing. The "terrorist" label is being bandied about waaaay to often, anymore. Where we're headed (if we're not there already) is a place where someone with 200 or more rounds of ammunition is labeled a "domestic terr'rist," or worse. This very un-American business has gone on long enough. Any of our so-called "leaders" that don't make the dismantling of the Patriot Act their number one priority should be considered an enemy of the State.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 23 2015,6:01 am
Which Patriot act do you refer? The under inflating balls or... :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 23 2015,7:38 am

(grassman @ Jan. 23 2015,6:01 am)
QUOTE
Which Patriot act do you refer? The under inflating balls or... :D

Or are we talking about John Boehnor(or how ever you spell his name)
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 23 2015,9:04 am

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 22 2015,8:27 pm)
QUOTE
And that's another thing. The "terrorist" label is being bandied about waaaay to often, anymore. Where we're headed (if we're not there already) is a place where someone with 200 or more rounds of ammunition is labeled a "domestic terr'rist," or worse. This very un-American business has gone on long enough. Any of our so-called "leaders" that don't make the dismantling of the Patriot Act their number one priority should be considered an enemy of the State.

I agree with you there, but when if it's even only one person who runs into a movie theatre, mall, school or Ft. Hood.  Whether they are carrying a black ISIS flag, wearing a turban or driving a Totyota pickup screaming "Allahu Akbar" as they are shooting up a place and people, they might be Islamic terrorists.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 23 2015,11:10 am

(MADDOG @ Jan. 23 2015,9:04 am)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 22 2015,8:27 pm)
QUOTE
And that's another thing. The "terrorist" label is being bandied about waaaay to often, anymore. Where we're headed (if we're not there already) is a place where someone with 200 or more rounds of ammunition is labeled a "domestic terr'rist," or worse. This very un-American business has gone on long enough. Any of our so-called "leaders" that don't make the dismantling of the Patriot Act their number one priority should be considered an enemy of the State.

I agree with you there, but when if it's even only one person who runs into a movie theatre, mall, school or Ft. Hood.  Whether they are carrying a black ISIS flag, wearing a turban or driving a Totyota pickup screaming "Allahu Akbar" as they are shooting up a place and people, they might be Islamic terrorists.

Or someone who deliberately flies their plane into a building in protest of the IRS. Or someone who shoots up a temple in Wisconsin.

QUOTE
Hooper cited a litany of news stories about domestic acts of violence that never gained prominence as acts of terrorism because, he said, Muslims weren’t involved: the attempted storming of an Atlanta-area courthouse by a heavily armed man last week, the arrest of two men accused of setting off pipe bombs in movie theaters in the D.C. area and an Alaska couple associated with an anti-government group who plotted to kill federal judges.

“There’s absolutely a double standard, and it needs to be called out,” said Arsalan Iftikhar, a senior editor of the Islamic Monthly. “Whenever a white person engages in violence they’re considered crazy lunatics, but when a brown Muslim does it, it’s an act of terrorism. Since 9/11, the media is quick to jump on anything an Arab or Muslim does, but it takes a much more deliberative approach when it’s a white person.”


< http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifesty...ry.html >


Then of course, there's always this:

< https://firstlook.org/theinte...context >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 23 2015,11:30 am
QUOTE
In a 2003 audit, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General warned that the FBI's focus on animal rights and environmental activists placed public safety at risk. The audit advised the FBI to stop investigating these activists as terrorists. The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism has become too broad, the report said: "A more focused definition may allow the FBI to more effectively target its counterterrorism resources." The FBI refused.

In recent years, the campaigns against "eco-terrorism" have not slowed down. They have expanded to include nonviolent civil disobedience.

In July, environmental activist Tim DeChristopher was sentenced to two years in prison for disrupting an oil and gas auction by placing fake bids. The auction was later ruled illegal, but DeChristopher had cost corporations millions of dollars. Soon after his arrest, Utah state Rep. Mike Noel introduced legislation labeling DeChristopher's effective use of nonviolent civil disobedience as "eco-terrorism."

In four other states this year, legislation was introduced to single out animal rights and environmental activists who expose cruelty on factory farms. The meat, egg and dairy industries had a hand in drafting some of the bills, and state lawmakers aggressively lobbied on their behalf. As Florida state Sen. Jim Norman has said of undercover investigations by animal activists: "It's almost like terrorism."


< http://www.truth-out.org/news...berties >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 23 2015,11:47 am
QUOTE
As many
critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United
States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the
slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely make the United States look hypocritical to
the rest of the world.


< http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/214721/original/OdomPaper.pdf >

Retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 23 2015,2:00 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jan. 23 2015,11:30 am)
QUOTE
The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism has become too broad

Yes, I should have included the word "domestic" in my rant. My bad.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 25 2015,12:03 am

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 23 2015,2:00 pm)
QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jan. 23 2015,11:30 am)
QUOTE
The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism has become too broad

Yes, I should have included the word "domestic" in my rant. My bad.

You did have the word domestic in your rant. I was just pointing out to others that not all terrorists are muslim.

Forgot to add the Norwegian guy who shot all those kids at an island camp in 2011.
Posted by Marneman on Jan. 27 2015,1:48 am
Hate to say it, but I actually agree with Sen. Franken :blush:

I think we should be using American made pipe and labor on this job and insure it is done right.
We built the Alaskan Pipeline back in the 70's using American made parts and labor.  And there have been no major breakages or spills in all that time.

The Republicans who voted against these admendment are doing their country, their party, and their constituates a big disservess(spl.)

Building this pipeline with cheap parts and cheap labor is just asking for trouble in my opinion.

(okay I admit it , I can't spell worth a damn!)
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 01 2015,2:06 pm
:D .
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 01 2015,3:23 pm
One of the companies I service are just fine with the quality of Chinese made drill pipe they use. This "made in China" stigma is nothing more than Union whiners rhetoric. Asian manufacturing technology has advanced quite far since the quality concerns of decades ago and in some ways surpassed ours.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 01 2015,3:33 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 01 2015,3:23 pm)
QUOTE
One of the companies I service are just fine with the quality of Chinese made drill pipe they use. This "made in China" stigma is nothing more than Union whiners rhetoric. Asian manufacturing technology has advanced quite far since the quality concerns of decades ago and in some ways surpassed ours.

You seem to hate the states and American workers, why don’t you give up your citizenship and move to China if you like the chink stuff so much!
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 01 2015,4:38 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 01 2015,3:33 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 01 2015,3:23 pm)
QUOTE
One of the companies I service are just fine with the quality of Chinese made drill pipe they use. This "made in China" stigma is nothing more than Union whiners rhetoric. Asian manufacturing technology has advanced quite far since the quality concerns of decades ago and in some ways surpassed ours.

You seem to hate the states and American workers, why don’t you give up your citizenship and move to China if you like the chink stuff so much!

No, I'm just fine here, lot's of work. I've warched the import business in the market here grow from a handful of containers a month to over 15K a month. Fossils like you are like angry monkeys at the zoo screaming and throwing sh!t.

Perhaps you could move, to China and promote the union way of life :dunce:

It's a world economy and the U.S. has fallen out of the lead. The sad thing is that we've done it to ourselves with big government and big regulations :(

I've been smart enough to adapt :thumbsup:
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 01 2015,10:44 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 01 2015,3:23 pm)
QUOTE
One of the companies I service are just fine with the quality of Chinese made drill pipe they use.

Businessmen are always happy when they pay labor pennies on the dollar, but those same executives don't care about quality anymore.  It's people down the chain (or in this case, downstream) that have to deal with the pipes breaking.  Then call customer service and get routed to the Phillipines or India.   :p

QUOTE
This "made in China" stigma is nothing more than Union whiners rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric, anyone who's ever bought their share of wrenches or a sockets knows the difference between American made steel and the stuff made in second and third world countries.

It's a good debate, but we shouldn't pass the XL phase either way.  Repubs say it's crucial, I'm sure Deepwater Horizon was crucial as well.  Remember the chanting "drill baby, drill" right before that happened?  By the time they realized the environmentalists were right, it was too late the and damage couldn't be undone.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 02 2015,12:51 am

(irisheyes @ Feb. 01 2015,10:44 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 01 2015,3:23 pm)
QUOTE
One of the companies I service are just fine with the quality of Chinese made drill pipe they use.

Businessmen are always happy when they pay labor pennies on the dollar, but those same executives don't care about quality anymore.  It's people down the chain (or in this case, downstream) that have to deal with the pipes breaking.  Then call customer service and get routed to the Phillipines or India.   :p

QUOTE
This "made in China" stigma is nothing more than Union whiners rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric, anyone who's ever bought their share of wrenches or a sockets knows the difference between American made steel and the stuff made in second and third world countries.

It's a good debate, but we shouldn't pass the XL phase either way.  Repubs say it's crucial, I'm sure Deepwater Horizon was crucial as well.  Remember the chanting "drill baby, drill" right before that happened?  By the time they realized the environmentalists were right, it was too late the and damage couldn't be undone.

Well of course money saved is money earned but if a product breaks down time costs money too, when I have a truck in the shop it's not out making money.I own a lot of foreign made products, some American made too. I hate having stuff break and it comes down to one thing, if it works and I'm satified with it's performance, I don't care where it's made.

One of the pistols I take to range is made in Turkey. I did my research before I bought it, turns out it's made in an ISO certified factory. A year later, a couple of thousand rounds later I'm very happy with it.

A lot of my tools are foreign made, they have warranties, if they break, they're replaced free.

I'm pretty sure these folks that buy pipe  care about failures.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 03 2015,10:41 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 02 2015,12:51 am)
QUOTE
One of the pistols I take to range is made in Turkey. I did my research before I bought it, turns out it's made in an ISO certified factory. A year later, a couple of thousand rounds later I'm very happy with it.

Don't think I've ever looked at a handgun made in Turkey.  But there are some great firearms out there from abroad.  Glocks have a good reputation, made in Austria, but one of my favorites is the Springfield XD line.  American sounding name (Springfield Armory), but the XD's are made in Croatia if I remember right.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2015,11:13 am
Springers are most certainly made in Croatia. I'm not a big fan of them, kinda chunky.

The Turkish gun is a Canik 55, model TP 9.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 07 2015,7:27 pm

< View on YouTube >
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,4:28 am
Who on this site has the power to change my Avatar? Its been changed twice in the past year without my permission..

My guess is TTT, magter, ICU812 or Maddog? Just a guess.. I'm pretty sure IrishEyes wouldn't do it..  

Why don't they change Self-Banished to a Wimpy?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,7:23 am

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,4:28 am)
QUOTE
Who on this site has the power to change my Avatar? Its been changed twice in the past year without my permission..

My guess is TTT, magter, ICU812 or Maddog? Just a guess.. I'm pretty sure IrishEyes wouldn't do it..  

Why don't they change Self-Banished to a Wimpy?

Well it says there are only two members logged in at this time, it must mean that you changed it :thumbsup:
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,7:30 am
My old avatar was Johnny Cage.. If you can find it on this site, I'll kiss your ass.. In public..
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,7:39 am

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,7:30 am)
QUOTE
My old avatar was Johnny Cage.. If you can find it on this site, I'll kiss your ass.. In public..

To paraphrase the line from Blazing Saddles...

"That's alright, Mongo straight".
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,7:41 am
If you can find my Fox News Clown avatar on this site, I'll kiss your ass.. In Public..
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,7:45 am

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,7:41 am)
QUOTE
If you can find my Fox News Clown avatar, I'll kiss your ass.. In Public..

Anymore comments like that and I'll report you for sexual harrassment.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,8:11 am
You noticed I said in Public, not in Private.. :D

Only people from the inside can remove an avatar from the avatar list..

Hey Liberal, what happened to my Fox News Clown and Johnny Cage avatars?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,8:14 am

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,8:11 am)
QUOTE
You noticed I said in Public, not in Private.. :D

Only people from the inside can remove an avatar from the avatar list..

Hey Liberal, what happened to my Fox News Clown and Johnny Cage avatars?

Avatar pics would most likely have to be loaded from your photo library.

Also, I'm not an exhibitionist you pervert.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,8:58 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,8:14 am)
QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,8:11 am)
QUOTE
You noticed I said in Public, not in Private.. :D

Only people from the inside can remove an avatar from the avatar list..

Hey Liberal, what happened to my Fox News Clown and Johnny Cage avatars?

Avatar pics would most likely have to be loaded from your photo library.

Also, I'm not an exhibitionist you pervert.

There is a list of several hundred avatars, some that have been uploaded by us and others supplied by the forum..

OK then, in private..  :sarcasm:
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 08 2015,9:07 am
Good God, are you that unskilled? I found it in like two minutes.

< http://www.albertlea.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_foxjoke.gif >
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,9:41 am

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 08 2015,9:07 am)
QUOTE
Good God, are you that unskilled? I found it in like two minutes.

< http://www.albertlea.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_foxjoke.gif >

I knew SB couldn't find it if someone stuck it up his nose.. I don't offer kissing ass lightly.. :D  

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Botto for my FOX News Clown.. Now can you find my Johnny Cage avatar?
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 08 2015,9:45 am
^Omg...are you for real?  And I'm not talking about your inability of finding your avatar.
:rofl:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 08 2015,9:58 am
Ok Botto, I had a carhart hat, you don't happen to know where that went? :dunno:  :D
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,11:04 am

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 08 2015,9:45 am)
QUOTE
^Omg...are you for real?  And I'm not talking about your inability of finding your avatar.
:rofl:

You have to admit that my FOX News Clown is looking pretty damn sweet.. :laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,12:53 pm

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,11:04 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 08 2015,9:45 am)
QUOTE
^Omg...are you for real?  And I'm not talking about your inability of finding your avatar.
:rofl:

You have to admit that my FOX News Clown is looking pretty damn sweet.. :laugh:

Yes, it most certainly is sweet and the clown part fits you quite well :thumbsup:
Keep it, I think it's quite cute :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,1:30 pm

(Botto 82 @ Feb. 08 2015,9:07 am)
QUOTE
Good God, are you that unskilled? I found it in like two minutes.

< http://www.albertlea.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_foxjoke.gif >

All he would have had to do is run a Google search of "Alcitizen" on images and he would have found his precious clown. The same thing works for "Self Banished"

The cheese is sliding fast today :crazy:
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,2:32 pm
QUOTE

Keep it, I think it's quite cute :rofl:

Thanks SB, I found Johnny with alcitizens.. Now you can kiss my ass.. :rofl: :sarcasm:
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,3:52 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,1:30 pm)
QUOTE
The cheese is sliding fast today :crazy:

Call me naive but what does "The cheese is sliding fast today" mean?

Please don't tell me it has something to do with Butterfly Farts in South America.. :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,4:03 pm

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,3:52 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,1:30 pm)
QUOTE
The cheese is sliding fast today :crazy:

Call me naive but what does "The cheese is sliding fast today" mean?

Please don't tell me it has something to do with Butterfly Farts in South America.. :D

I suppose I can't say stupid on this, we'll just say ignorant.

I'll let you think about that one awhile.

And no, it has nothing to do with "butterfly farts"

Bonus points if you can figure out where the sleeping habits of armadillos comes from.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,4:34 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,4:03 pm)
QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,3:52 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,1:30 pm)
QUOTE
The cheese is sliding fast today :crazy:

Call me naive but what does "The cheese is sliding fast today" mean?

Please don't tell me it has something to do with Butterfly Farts in South America.. :D

I suppose I can't say stupid on this, we'll just say ignorant.

I'll let you think about that one awhile.

And no, it has nothing to do with "butterfly farts"

Bonus points if you can figure out where the sleeping habits of armadillos comes from.

All I know is cheese doesn't let much slide, cheese makes me constipated..  :laugh:

Armadillos sleeping habits?? They probably don't sleep until they're hit by a car.. Hell I don't know..

Now is your chance to show your true knowledge, knowledge I haven't needed for over a half a century.. :dunno:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,6:09 pm
^^way too much information  :blush:
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,6:19 pm
The internet shows nothing on your cheese sliding fast or where armadillo sleeping habits come from..

You don't have the knowledge that I thought you did.. :rofl:

Just an SB fart in South America.. :crazy: :sarcasm:
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 08 2015,8:41 pm
Does this help?
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 08 2015,9:28 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 08 2015,8:41 pm)
QUOTE
Does this help?

Chicken Hawk.. :lalala:
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 09 2015,6:31 am

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,4:28 am)
QUOTE
Why don't they change Self-Banished to a Wimpy?

S.B. needs an avatar change, especially since his "Never Submit" guy looks way too close to the leather mask dude from Pulp Fiction.   ???
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 09 2015,8:03 am
Yes, and drive-bys are a great conflict resolution tool.  :p
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 09 2015,8:47 am
I thought the Sponge Bob's buddy worked well for alki.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 10 2015,6:49 am

(MADDOG @ Feb. 09 2015,8:47 am)
QUOTE
I thought the Sponge Bob's buddy worked well for alki.

I can see Plankton saying "Crabs is going to get the Wrath of Alki one of these days, Yes One of these Days, Hahahaha".. :laugh:
Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 10 2015,8:10 am

(irisheyes @ Feb. 09 2015,6:31 am)
QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Feb. 08 2015,4:28 am)
QUOTE
Why don't they change Self-Banished to a Wimpy?

S.B. needs an avatar change, especially since his "Never Submit" guy looks way too close to the leather mask dude from Pulp Fiction.   ???

Bring out the Gimp.
He's sleeping.
...Well, you better wake him up then!
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 28 2015,2:32 pm
:dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 29 2015,6:50 am


How can anyone feel the Republican Party represents the 99% of America!
Posted by grassman on Apr. 29 2015,7:07 am
Oh it has become quite easy for them. :lalala:
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 29 2015,7:30 am
How can the dems feel they represent any of America? :dunno:
Posted by Expatriate on May 01 2015,7:49 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 02 2015,5:47 am
^^ You shouldn't drink so heavy that close to bedtime :p
Posted by Expatriate on May 02 2015,6:56 am
:frusty:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 02 2015,7:17 am
^^very good ideas  :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on May 03 2015,7:20 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 03 2015,7:46 am
Posted by Self-Banished on May 03 2015,10:06 am
^^once again, a video of a clown, posted by a clown, that I will not watch :(
Posted by Expatriate on May 03 2015,7:12 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 04 2015,4:36 am
Jezzus, the ultimate in stupidity^^

Your turn
Posted by Expatriate on May 04 2015,7:51 am
:D
Posted by Expatriate on May 04 2015,6:56 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 05 2015,12:22 am
^^ Racist- misogynist :angry:
Posted by Expatriate on May 05 2015,6:32 am
:frusty:
Posted by Expatriate on May 05 2015,6:38 am
:clap:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 05 2015,9:20 am
^^ So gullible
Posted by Self-Banished on May 05 2015,11:23 am

(Expatriate @ May 05 2015,6:38 am)
QUOTE
:clap:

Yeah, let's get all the dirty money out of politics :thumbsup:

< http://dailycaller.com/2015...ns-show >
Posted by Botto 82 on May 05 2015,12:10 pm
I bet you guys get into a lot of those stupid Ford vs. Chevy arguments, too. :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 05 2015,12:37 pm
Me? Next truck I buy will be Toyota😃
Posted by alcitizens on May 05 2015,7:27 pm
Rand Paul '16

Also fitting for a few that post on this site..
Posted by Expatriate on May 06 2015,6:58 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 06 2015,11:03 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 06 2015,12:19 pm
^^ hmmm, what are stroke lady's accomplishments as compared to Carly??? :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on May 06 2015,4:18 pm
:dunce:
Posted by MADDOG on May 06 2015,4:48 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 06 2015,12:19 pm)
QUOTE
^^ hmmm, what are stroke lady's accomplishments as compared to Carly??? :blush:

I came back to see what expat's answer to your question could possible be.  I guess he was unable to answer.  All you got was the standard liberal response.    :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on May 06 2015,6:37 pm
^^What part of post #761 #671 didn't you understand!
Posted by Expatriate on May 06 2015,6:41 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 07 2015,7:13 am
:p

Source:< https://www.opensecrets.org/[/URL]
Posted by MADDOG on May 07 2015,8:35 am

(Expatriate @ May 06 2015,6:37 pm)
QUOTE
^^What part of post #761 didn't you understand!

I'm still waiting for you to post enough silly pictures of Barney to get to post #761.
Posted by Expatriate on May 07 2015,8:45 am
^^the house that fell on the witch is HP, figure it out yet.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 07 2015,9:20 am
^^ ooooh! 671, the picture gets a little clearer now
Expat is dyslexic.
This explains a lot.
Posted by Expatriate on May 07 2015,11:51 am
:dunce:^^ no coffee at 0630... #761 #671
Posted by Self-Banished on May 07 2015,2:07 pm
^^ ok, I can deal with that :rofl:

Coffee's important. :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on May 07 2015,6:18 pm
Posted by Expatriate on May 08 2015,7:22 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 08 2015,7:23 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 08 2015,7:58 am
C'mon, more coffee.
Posted by Expatriate on May 08 2015,11:49 am
:dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 08 2015,1:54 pm
wow, lots of pics, I use them too but not to the extent you do.
Do you use them because you're lazy or semi illiterate.
Posted by Common Citizen on May 08 2015,3:11 pm
I think expat should find a family making less them him to share his income with.  After all, why should he be any richer than them?
Posted by MADDOG on May 08 2015,3:32 pm
:D
Posted by Self-Banished on May 08 2015,4:25 pm
^^Hey! Behave yourself, the moochers(welfare)will become jealous of the parasites (unions) then all hell will break loose. :(
Posted by MADDOG on May 08 2015,4:45 pm
Oh, sorry.
Posted by Expatriate on May 08 2015,7:16 pm
:dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 09 2015,2:16 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 03 2012,12:50 pm)
QUOTE
"Right to Work" Laws: Get the Facts


What is a “right to work” law?

Despite its misleading name, this type of law does not guarantee anyone a job and it does not protect against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - the union contract.

A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.

“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process. Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!

Will a “right to work” law benefit workers in Minnesota?

No. Workers in states with so-called Right-to-Work (RTW) laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states - lower wages, higher poverty, less access to health care, poorer education for children - according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Census Bureau. Why should Minnesota adopt a losing RTW strategy that lowers the standard of living for workers and their families?

Working Families in States with “Right to Work” Laws Earn Lower Wages

On average, workers in states with “Right to Work” law earn $5,538 a year less than workers in states without these laws.

“Right to Work” States Spend Less on Education

Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.

“Right to Work” States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.

“Right to Work” Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards

Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.

78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.

Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.

How will a “right to work” law affect Minnesota's economy?

We need to strengthen our economy, and a so-called “Right to Work” Law would take us in the wrong direction. Minnesota has a better economic record than states with so-called “right to work” laws. For employers, a union contract with lower turnover and higher employee morale equals higher productivity. By undermining contracts and depressing wages, a “right to work” law will reduce expendable consumer income and hurt productivity.

Do we need a “right to work” law to attract new jobs to Minnesota?

No. Industries locate in a state for many reasons, but a right to work law is not one of them. Factors like workforce productivity, availability of skilled workers, transportation, closeness to markets and materials, quality of life and proximity to research universities are the keys to economic growth. We need to create good jobs throughout the state, but a “right to work law” will not persuade companies to move here.

Who benefits from “Right to Work” Laws?

No one. Some low-wage employers might think that they would benefit from weak unions and low wages, but union members are also consumers. “Right to work” laws undermine the purchasing power of unionized workers. Employees covered by union contracts receive 28 percent more in wages and benefits than workers without unions. For women workers, the union advantage is 34 percent. For African American workers, the union advantage is 29 percent. And for Hispanic workers, the union advantage is a whopping 50 percent. When “right to work” laws weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits, workers have less to spend and the entire economy – particularly small business--suffers.


“Right to Work” and Individual Freedoms

Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union?

No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union. Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.

Is a union required to represent all employees covered by a contract (nonmembers as well as members)?

Yes. Under federal labor law, unions have the duty to fairly represent all workers covered by a contract. That means nonmembers as well as members get the same wages, hours and working conditions established by the contract. Unions must bargain for everyone and enforce the contract terms for everyone in a fair, honest, nondiscriminatory manner. Unions cannot refuse to pay the costs of arbitrating a grievance simply because it involves a nonmember. A union that violates this duty of fair representation can be sued. This duty of fair representation applies whether or not the state has a right to work law.

If Minnesota enacts a “right to work” law, who will pay the costs of representing non-members?

Union members will be forced to pay not only their own share of representation costs, but also the full costs of those who do not pay their fair share of dues but still receive all of the benefits of union representation.

Does a union security clause require nonmembers to pay full union dues?

No. Nonmembers are required to pay only the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining expenses, so these costs are fairly shared by all represented employees.

Can a union unilaterally impose a union security agreement?

No. The employer and the union must negotiate a union security agreement. If management refuses, there is no union security agreement.

Why would an employer agree to a union security clause?

Many employers want to avoid the divisions and animosity that occur when some workers have to pay the costs of representing other employees.

Will a “right to work” law protect a worker’s right to a job?

No. These laws guarantee no one a job, nor do they provide any due process or just cause protections against unfair firing. By undermining unions, so-called “Right to Work” laws would weaken the best job security protections workers have - a grievance procedure that requires employers to have legitimate, job-related reasons for disciplining or discharging an employee.

Here's some cold hard facts for you boy

There is no guarantee of a job, nobody in this world owes you a damned thing.

I have a contract, I negotiated it myself between myself and my customer. If I were a regular employee I'd still negotiate my own compensation, piss on your union.

Right to work is not fair to dues paying members? You need to grow a set and take charge of your life, what a pathetic excuse for a human being. If you need to join your little "club" don't expect me to contribute.

I have a high quality of life because I work hard, with very few exceptions every time I see union workers they're standing around with their finger up their ass.

Minnesota becoming a right to work state? With our current political climate probably not. But you never know, we got CCW years back and I never thought we would.

Unions are nothing more than blood sucking parasites.
Posted by Expatriate on May 09 2015,6:17 am
^^^Yeah, Unions ruined everything didn’t they!

The good old days with that 16 hour workday, no weekends or Holidays, who needs safety regulations, workers don’t need a living wage or to be able to buy the products they produce and sell! Health benefits, vacations, paid holidays, retirement all preposterous ideas! Child labor laws, that kid can work as soon as he can walk! Work for pennies on the dollar 24/7 no benefits no social security or pension, just work till you drop!
Unions who needs them right? Definitely not Americans, we love living in poverty!

Damn Unions, we need to go back to the good old days!  :sarcasm: :sarcasm:  :sarcasm:
Posted by Expatriate on May 09 2015,6:33 am
:)
Posted by Self-Banished on May 09 2015,7:23 am
No, workers don't need protection from corperations, maybe the truly pathetic, the truly inept, incompetent, retards that get done taking a dump and need help wiping need a union.

You're actually comparing a union contract with the constitution? (Though I think it's near dead) Unions are truly unAmerican :(
Posted by grassman on May 10 2015,8:01 am
Really!!
Posted by grassman on May 10 2015,8:09 am
The reality is, there are two sides of business. One side owns the business, the other performs the work to make the business successful. The owner holds the power. The worker has nothing. Years ago, if one did not like his job, he could literally walk down the street and get another. Those days are gone. Business has shown how greed works better for them than fairness. You can not argue that. Sure, there are still some fair business owners out there, the others out number them. Look at all of the cutting of corners and people have taken place. Labors stagnant wages and the top going through the roof is proof. If you are not there experiencing it, you have no clue. Bottom dollar and shareholders and boardrooms have taken the fairness out of everything. Now, defend them!
Posted by Self-Banished on May 10 2015,2:22 pm

(grassman @ May 10 2015,8:09 am)
QUOTE
The reality is, there are two sides of business. One side owns the business, the other performs the work to make the business successful. The owner holds the power. The worker has nothing. Years ago, if one did not like his job, he could literally walk down the street and get another. Those days are gone. Business has shown how greed works better for them than fairness. You can not argue that. Sure, there are still some fair business owners out there, the others out number them. Look at all of the cutting of corners and people have taken place. Labors stagnant wages and the top going through the roof is proof. If you are not there experiencing it, you have no clue. Bottom dollar and shareholders and boardrooms have taken the fairness out of everything. Now, defend them!

The worker has nothing? He has a job, courtesy of the business owner, be a bit more appreciative.

You can't quit your job and go elsewhere? Bullsh!t! There's another job just waiting for you if you look hard enough. Dosesn't pay as well? Life's tough buttercup :thumbsup:

Stagnant wages? Work hard, be an asset instead of a problem and you might get a raise. Be a problem, late for work, have a bad attitude and your employer might just show the possibilities of employment elsewhere.

Think you can do better, pay better, advance your life further? Take the risk, put up some cash, talk to the banker and start your own business. :thumbsup:
Posted by grassman on May 10 2015,3:59 pm
I did. Not everyone will start up a business. What would you do if there was 1,000,000 trucking companies in the cities? Be real. :thumbsup:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 10 2015,4:35 pm
^^very simple, be the best
Posted by Expatriate on May 10 2015,5:31 pm
:p  Bush / Chaney 2016
Posted by grassman on May 10 2015,5:44 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 10 2015,4:35 pm)
QUOTE
^^very simple, be the best

What if that still meant making very little? :;):
Posted by Self-Banished on May 10 2015,6:46 pm
^^ then life would be tough, wounldn't it buttercup. :(
Posted by Botto 82 on May 10 2015,10:02 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 10 2015,4:35 pm)
QUOTE
^^very simple, be the best

Can you even see your feet without sitting? Some peeps are differently-abled. It's not 1960. anymore.
Posted by irisheyes on May 10 2015,10:04 pm
An all Democratic legislature and Governor improved the economy and the budget of Minnesota, reducing unemployment rates, cut property taxes for the first time in over a decade, and turned a deficit into a surplus.  Nationally an all Democratic President and Congress to bring the U.S. out of a recession and cut the deficit in half.  Conservatives watch in horror, some (like S.B.) even suggest we go back to the standards of the 19th Century:  get rid of unions, minimum wage, safety/health regs, and shift taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.   :(

Life's tough buttercup, it's even tougher when you see a good economy and actively try to make it into a bad one again, like Wisconsin.   :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 11 2015,4:58 am
^^A good economy?? It's been a few years since there's been one. All democrat?  :dunce:  let's see, a crap economy anchored by cooked numbers, a race-baiting president with a couple of cities burned and my bet Baltimore will burn again, a dem candidate that's even more incompetent than the president we have now, another dem candidate that's a screaming socialist. All Dems? Yeah right  :dunce:  :dunce:  :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on May 11 2015,6:59 am
Well the Republicans have given you another Christian Coalition nutjob for your consideration as our Nations leader!
Posted by Self-Banished on May 11 2015,7:08 am
^^ no argument there.😁
Posted by alcitizens on May 11 2015,6:09 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 11 2015,4:58 am)
QUOTE
All democrat?  :dunce:

Democrats controlled the State House, State Senate and Governor in Minnesota..
Posted by Expatriate on May 11 2015,6:34 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 12 2015,6:43 am
This guy is a true Bush, he admits Iraq was invaded on falsified intel, when asked on retrospect if he knew the intel was false would he invade, his answer, he would invade.

3 trillion dollars later and 4,425 dead and 32,223 wounded American boys and this chickenhawk wants to do it again, How much of that 3 trillion went to enrich these warmongers!

We'll have to provide medical and pension to the 32,223 wounded boys, we also have to remember Bush put this war on the credit card so that 3 trillion with interest grows 7 plus with time.

How many more Republican nutjobs will the American people tolerate before we vote them into extinction!


Posted by Expatriate on May 14 2015,5:53 pm
:;):
Posted by Marneman on May 15 2015,1:40 am
Expatriot has been spewing his hatred and vitriol against the Republican Party and the Tea Party for the last couple of weeks and frankly it's getting old :deadhorse:

I would love to see all the rich fatcats blocked from making campaign contributions.  
But if you block the Koch's than you got to block Soros and Blumberg too.  (You know Blumberg the rich guy from New York that supplies all those anti-Republican pictures)

Why is it that canidate spend millions of dollar to get a job that pays what?? About $120,000.00, but by the end of their first term their multi-millionaires!  There is something definatly broken in the system that needs to be fixed!

Instead we keep sniping at each other over petty party differances when we should be working together to fix the system.  Of course the powers that be want it that way so that while we're distracted they can go on doing as they please.   I identify myself as Republican, but that doesn't mean I agree with every thing the party says and does.  Also I have friends and relatives who identify themselves as Democrats and I respect their right to align themselves that way.  So lets all of us just tone down on the retoric for a while, afterall the election is still another year and a half away!
Posted by Expatriate on May 15 2015,6:39 am

(Marneman @ May 15 2015,1:40 am)
QUOTE
Expatriot has been spewing his hatred and vitriol against the Republican Party and the Tea Party for the last couple of weeks and frankly it's getting old

Just for you Marmonkey!
Posted by Self-Banished on May 15 2015,7:58 am
^^the "one note Nellie" posts😳
Posted by Common Citizen on May 15 2015,12:44 pm

(irisheyes @ May 10 2015,10:04 pm)
QUOTE
An all Democratic legislature and Governor improved the economy and the budget of Minnesota, reducing unemployment rates, cut property taxes for the first time in over a decade, and turned a deficit into a surplus.  Nationally an all Democratic President and Congress to bring the U.S. out of a recession and cut the deficit in half.  Conservatives watch in horror, some (like S.B.) even suggest we go back to the standards of the 19th Century:  get rid of unions, minimum wage, safety/health regs, and shift taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.   :(

Life's tough buttercup, it's even tougher when you see a good economy and actively try to make it into a bad one again, like Wisconsin.   :dunce:

Actually they fleeced the Minnesota taxpayers to the tune of $2 billion dollars.  To add insult to injury they also want to raise the fuel tax on the middle class.

Greedy buggers.
Posted by Expatriate on May 16 2015,5:54 am
^^Nobody likes taxes, but we have to pay our State and Nations bills!
Posted by Glad I Left on May 17 2015,8:29 am
I think most us agree that taxes are a necessary evil, "paying the bills as you say".. But at what point do we look at the bills and say to ourselves.. "We bought this? F that, in taking it back to the store for a refund!"
Posted by grassman on May 17 2015,8:49 am
You are right GIL. Some say that our military has been slashed to a level of vulnerability from the outside world. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a military budget of $660 billion dollars. The waste alone would probably support many critical programs.

From The Business Insider:
15 Facts About Military Spending That Will Blow Your Mind

Ujala Sehgal and Robert Johnson

Oct. 14, 2011, 5:30 PM

As the economy has tanked, the banks have been bailed out, and America lost its jobs, the defense budget continues to grow.

For the past 13 years U.S. military spending has increased 114 percent.

That's 8 percent higher than at the height of Reagan's presidency and the Cold War.

The money is used to buying sophisticated weapons that often don't make it into production, and when the do they're expensive to maintain.

The U.S. must spend a full 1 percent of its GDP just to maintain its arsenal.

1)America spends more on its military than THE NEXT 15 COUNTRIES COMBINED

2)The total known land area occupied by U.S. bases and facilities is 15,654 square miles -- bigger than D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey combined.

3)By 2033 the U.S. will be paying $59 billion a year to its veterans injured in the wars.

4)In 2007, the amount of money labeled 'wasted' or 'lost' in Iraq -- $11 billion -- could pay 220,000 teachers salaries

5)Defense spending is higher today than at any time since the height of World War II

6)America's defense spending doubled in the same period that its economy shrunk from 32 to 23 percent of global output*

7)The yearly cost of stationing one soldier in Iraq could feed 60 American families.

8)Each day in Afghanistan costs the government more than it did to build the entire Pentagon

9)In 2008, the Pentagon spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earned in a year

10)The pentagon budget consumes 80% of individual income tax revenue

11)Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Defense Department still has more than 40 generals, admirals or civilian equivalents based in Europe

12)The amount the government has spent compensating radiation victims of nuclear testing ($1.5 billion) could fully educate 13,000 American kids

13)The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety

14)The U.S. has 5% of the world's population -- but almost 50% of the world's total military expenditure

15)So where do they get all that money?
Posted by MADDOG on May 18 2015,9:06 am
Isn't it always where you get your information, how much of it you supply and how you present the info that matters to the unsuspected reader?

couple examples.

QUOTE
2)The total known land area occupied by U.S. bases and facilities is 15,654 square miles -- bigger than D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey combined.


Just Fts. Hood and Bliss in Texas combine for over 2000 of your 15,654 square miles.

QUOTE
For the past 13 years U.S. military spending has increased 114 percent.

That's 8 percent higher than at the height of Reagan's presidency and the Cold War.


So what you're saying is that we've increased military spending since 9/11 and three wars.  How many terrorist attacks that killed thousands and wars were fought when Reagan was in office?

QUOTE
For the past 13 years U.S. military spending has increased 114 percent.


Military spending declined in 2013 from $671 billion to $619 billion.

QUOTE
8)Each day in Afghanistan costs the government more than it did to build the entire Pentagon


The Pentagon was built in 1941-1943.  Come on.  Get real.  How much did a hamburger cost you even ten years later?

QUOTE
3)By 2033 the U.S. will be paying $59 billion a year to its veterans injured in the wars.


Do you really want to go there?  :angry:
Posted by grassman on May 18 2015,10:32 am
I have no argument against taking care of our returning military recruits. (I think those that put them there do.)
My point is that the military machine is over indulgent. These wars were not really necessary the way they took place. The waste in an entity that has as much might is the point. It takes up most of our dollars. I remember when Bush came to congress, 'I'LL PROBABLY NEED ONLY ABOUT 13 BILLION." A little bit of an over run would you not say?
< http://www.reuters.com/article...0131118 >

< http://www.forbes.com/sites...ork-out >

< https://medium.com/war-is-...86aae30 >

This is some of the waste that I speak of, do not confuse it with our troops.
Posted by Expatriate on May 19 2015,6:52 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 19 2015,7:37 pm
^^...and the president we have now will cost us over 18 trillion :dunce:
Posted by alcitizens on May 19 2015,8:31 pm

(Self-Banished @ May 19 2015,7:37 pm)
QUOTE
^^...and the president we have now will cost us over 18 trillion :dunce:

How do you figure?
Posted by Expatriate on May 20 2015,12:09 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on May 24 2015,7:39 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 24 2015,6:53 pm
Hunter Thompson :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on May 27 2015,6:36 am
Posted by Expatriate on May 28 2015,6:34 am
:dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on May 29 2015,4:56 pm
:p

Former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert allegedly made a series of illegally structured bank withdrawals as part of an effort to conceal past sexual misconduct with an unnamed person.
hint: he likes little boys, karma catches up with another Republican pervert!

< http://www.usatoday.com/story...8162155 >
Posted by Expatriate on May 29 2015,6:02 pm
^^:p
Posted by Self-Banished on May 29 2015,6:58 pm
yah, could be worse though
Could be a child molester-rapist like Clinton :dunce:

Karma also bites back :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on May 29 2015,9:09 pm
^^^^Are you back on the sauce?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 30 2015,5:03 am
exlax seems to think that if you don't have his thin kings, his political views you're prone to being some sexual deviant. I just pointed out that it doesn't seem to matter, you could be an ex speaker of the house, an ex president or even a union member. :dunce:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on May 30 2015,6:39 am

(Self-Banished @ May 29 2015,6:58 pm)
QUOTE
yah, could be worse though
Could be a child molester-rapist like Clinton :dunce:

Karma also bites back :rofl:

How does consensual sex between two adults compare with a wresting coach and a student?

Seems SB even comes to the aid of a pedophile in a vain attempt to defend his Republican bias!
Posted by Self-Banished on May 30 2015,8:20 am
^^me? No, just as soon put 165grs, of hydra shock in their skull.Hillary? Most difiniatly an enabler.😜
Posted by Liberal on May 30 2015,12:15 pm
I love when the republicans call Clinton a child molester because it shows sane folks how willing they are to lie. Nobody sane calls a 22 year old woman a "child".
Posted by Liberal on May 30 2015,12:21 pm
It does appear that Dennis Hastert is a homosexual child molester. So during his time as speaker we had Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and Larry Craig.

Sure seems to be a lot of sexual deviants in the party of family values. :dunno:
Posted by Self-Banished on May 30 2015,12:33 pm
When my daughter was 22 I still considered her a child.

And if a 50 something predator would have been trying to score with her there would have been a "discussion"
Posted by Liberal on May 30 2015,12:41 pm
Your kid is always your child, but not to anyone else. I remember when right wingers would say, "Words matter" in one sentence and in the next sentence call a 22 year old woman a child. :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on May 31 2015,6:49 am
Hastert was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for his affair, hypocritical, but he was also all for privatizing Social Security.
So why does someone so bent on putting our Social Security in the market keep his money in the bank?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 31 2015,4:24 pm

(Expatriate @ May 31 2015,6:49 am)
QUOTE
Hastert was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for his affair, hypocritical, but he was also all for privatizing Social Security.
So why does someone so bent on putting our Social Security in the market keep his money in the bank?

Can I keep my SS in MY bank? I'd sure like to :thumbsup:

Clinton was impeached for lying to congress, not being a sexual predator.
Posted by Expatriate on May 31 2015,6:45 pm
Posted by Self-Banished on May 31 2015,6:50 pm
^^^three clowns, won't even bother :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on May 31 2015,7:49 pm
^^^:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 01 2015,8:04 am

(Expatriate @ May 31 2015,6:49 am)
QUOTE
Hastert was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for his affair, hypocritical, but he was also all for privatizing Social Security.
So why does someone so bent on putting our Social Security in the market keep his money in the bank?

< http://www.newburyportnews.com/opinion...oMobile >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 01 2015,6:55 pm
^^^ :p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 01 2015,7:02 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 01 2015,7:34 pm
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 03 2015,6:39 am
:p
Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 04 2015,9:01 am
Texas will be more than happy to have FEMA funds, and people like Gov. Chris Christie will stop attacking Obama long enough to get help in New Jersey.  Too bad we can't have the same enthusiastic support for rebuilding our infrastructure and making college affordable like it was decades ago.

Look at Minnesota, the last time Republicans were in charge of roads and bridges we had an interstate bridge collapse.  They knew it was in bad shape, yet they stopped inspecting it due to budget constraints.  The result, 14 died and 145 injured.  Now they're using the same "wait and see" mentality.  With a surplus they said there's no reason for a gas tax, but what's their alternative?  We haven't seen one yet...  Maybe next year, wait and see, I guess.   :(
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 04 2015,9:52 am

(irisheyes @ Jun. 04 2015,9:01 am)
QUOTE
Look at Minnesota, the last time Republicans were in charge of roads and bridges we had an interstate bridge collapse.  They knew it was in bad shape, yet they stopped inspecting it due to budget constraints.  The result, 14 died and 145 injured.  Now they're using the same "wait and see" mentality.  With a surplus they said there's no reason for a gas tax, but what's their alternative?  We haven't seen one yet...  Maybe next year, wait and see, I guess.   :(

Yeah well it took more time than just having the repub's in charge for that bridge to deteriorate. The design was flawed too, years of road salt and a MNDOT crew dumping tons of material on it the night before.

You need to think about that one awhile :dunce:
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 04 2015,11:08 am
Damn.  Texas had hoped to weed out a few non-swimmers.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 04 2015,11:10 am
^^ I believe the term is "floater" :D
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 04 2015,6:07 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 04 2015,6:13 pm
:;):
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 04 2015,6:22 pm
:p
Posted by grassman on Jun. 04 2015,9:56 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 04 2015,9:52 am)
QUOTE

(irisheyes @ Jun. 04 2015,9:01 am)
QUOTE
Look at Minnesota, the last time Republicans were in charge of roads and bridges we had an interstate bridge collapse.  They knew it was in bad shape, yet they stopped inspecting it due to budget constraints.  The result, 14 died and 145 injured.  Now they're using the same "wait and see" mentality.  With a surplus they said there's no reason for a gas tax, but what's their alternative?  We haven't seen one yet...  Maybe next year, wait and see, I guess.   :(

Yeah well it took more time than just having the repub's in charge for that bridge to deteriorate. The design was flawed too, years of road salt and a MNDOT crew dumping tons of material on it the night before.

You need to think about that one awhile :dunce:

Realy! I didn't start the fire so why should I put it out?! :p  Stupid!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 05 2015,3:43 am

(grassman @ Jun. 04 2015,9:56 pm)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 04 2015,9:52 am)
QUOTE

(irisheyes @ Jun. 04 2015,9:01 am)
QUOTE
Look at Minnesota, the last time Republicans were in charge of roads and bridges we had an interstate bridge collapse.  They knew it was in bad shape, yet they stopped inspecting it due to budget constraints.  The result, 14 died and 145 injured.  Now they're using the same "wait and see" mentality.  With a surplus they said there's no reason for a gas tax, but what's their alternative?  We haven't seen one yet...  Maybe next year, wait and see, I guess.   :(

Yeah well it took more time than just having the repub's in charge for that bridge to deteriorate. The design was flawed too, years of road salt and a MNDOT crew dumping tons of material on it the night before.

You need to think about that one awhile :dunce:

Realy! I didn't start the fire so why should I put it out?! :p  Stupid!

Wow , really? so when the other dumbass party was in office there were no bridge inspections? No road maintenance? :dunce:

Here read a little
< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge >
You'll see it was blamed on design.

Quit being so fricken dense.
Posted by grassman on Jun. 05 2015,6:39 am
I wonder who is voting against fixing our roads now?
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 05 2015,6:57 am
10 Reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime.


1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
2. Tripling the National Debt -
3. Iran/Contra -
4. Reagan funded Terrorists -
5. Unemployment issues -
6. Ignoring AIDS -
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants -
8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund -
10. Endless worship and never-ending praise -

< http://www.examiner.com/article...ifetime >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 05 2015,7:52 am
^^it worked quite well for me :cool:

...and to think he did all of that with the cooperation of a democrat house AND senate :rofl:
Posted by Glad I Left on Jun. 05 2015,8:18 am
I'm not as high on Reagan as others but how is #10 his fault?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 05 2015,10:03 am
Looks like Johnson beat him to it 1st on #9

< http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Lyndon_Johnson_Social_Security.htm >
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 05 2015,3:13 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 05 2015,6:57 am)
QUOTE
8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -

Funny you should mention Reagan and unions now.


QUOTE
< Reagan presidency pivotal for unions >


By Stacey Hirsh
Sun Staff


Ronald Reagan's presidency signaled a critical period for organized labor, a time when unions began shrinking at a much faster pace and it became more acceptable for businesses to fight off labor organizations..

But what remains in dispute about his legacy is whether the former president's actions triggered a decline in union membership or accelerated a trend that was had already begun.

"It isn't clear whether Reagan set the tone for the '80s and into the '90s, or whether he reflected changes in society," said Charles Craver, a labor law professor at George Washington University Law School and author of Can Unions Survive? The Rejuvenation of the American Labor Movement.

The percentage of the American work force that was unionized peaked in the 1950s at about 35 percent and had fallen to 23 percent by the time Reagan was elected in 1980, according to Craver and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

During the decades leading up to Reagan's presidency, the number of union members grew - but not as quickly as the work force was expanding.

The culture had started to change, America was becoming more conservative, and employers were becoming more strongly anti-union, Craver said.

An important turning point came in 1981, shortly after Reagan took office, when he fired about 12,000 federal air traffic controllers who went out on strike.

The controllers - represented by one of the few unions that supported Reagan in his bid for presidency, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers' Organization or PATCO - were fired for violating a law that forbids federal workers from striking.

By carrying out his threat to fire the controllers if they did not return to work Reagan not only set limits for public employee unions, but also signaled that it was OK for businesses to play hardball with private sector unions.

'Sent a message'

"The biggest thing that that did was it sent a message to the private employer community that it would be all right to go up against the unions," Craver said. "Whether he intended to do that, I don't know."

After the PATCO strike, the number of union members began to decline.

Only about 12.9 percent of workers belonged to a union last year, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Beginning in the '70s you started to have a number of corporations who began to challenge labor, not just at the negotiating table, began to challenge the legitimacy of organized labor," said John Jordan, president of Washington public relations firm Principor Communications and a union organizer for 10 years.

'Opened floodgates'

"This really didn't become mainstream acceptable until Reagan broke the PATCO union, and that really opened the floodgates to a major effort on the part of corporate America to essentially beat labor back into a corner to a place where they haven't recovered yet," said Jordan.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which was formed to represent the controllers after PATCO was broken in the strike, declined to comment on Reagan this week other than to offer condolences to his family.

Ironically, Reagan served as president of the Screen Actors Guild from 1947 to 1952 and then again in 1959 for a year.

Some industry experts said the criticism he received during and after the PATCO strike was undeserved.

Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the PATCO incident was a cut-and-dried case of federal employees who challenged the president and said they would strike even though it was illegal.

No evidence

"You will hear people say that after Ronald Reagan replaced the air traffic controllers, American employers started to replace strikers," Chaison said.

"I have never seen any evidence that decisions by management at private companies replace strikers were a result of Reagan's actions."

Reagan became president at a time when the labor movement had weakened, making him a very easy scapegoat for its problems, Chaison said.

Before Reagan, labor always felt it had an ear in the White House.

But during his administration, labor leaders began to feel marginalized, Chaison said.

"I do think that Reagan showed the labor movement how important it is to have a friend in the White House and how vulnerable the labor movement can be if they have someone who's not a friend," Chaison said, "because there were no labor law reforms passed, the minimum wage laws were not changed, foreign competition grew tremendously and ate away union jobs."

'Stacked' labor board

Reagan also made it much more difficult for workers who wanted to have a union to get one, said Gordon Lafer, an associate professor at the University of Oregon's labor education and research center.

"Reagan stacked the labor board with people who are anti-union," Lafer said. The right to strike became more theoretical and less real, he noted.

While Reagan did appoint members to the National Labor Relations Board who reflected his political views, previous administrations also had appointed board members who shared their ideologies, noted Alan Draper, a professor of government at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y.

Reagan simply took it to a new level, appointing members who were very anti-union, he said.

"The Reagan years accentuated and exaggerated a trend of decline that was already present before Reagan came on the scene," Draper said.
 :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 05 2015,4:20 pm
Seems like Expats list is falling apart :rofl:
I remember having all the work I could handle and more when Ronny was prez. :notworthy:
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 05 2015,5:01 pm
Nope, he's right on number seven.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 05 2015,5:57 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 05 2015,5:01 pm)
QUOTE
Nope, he's right on number seven.

Yep, he most certainly did but...

Reagan worked with a democrat house and senate to pass this, Buster just waved his fairy wand in an attempt.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 05 2015,6:43 pm
Reagan’s guilty as charged on all ten counts! you've proved number 10 with your worship!

< http://money.cnn.com/2015...id=Lead >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 07 2015,6:48 am
Seems every nutjob Republican in the country is running for President, waiting for SB and Maddog to jump on the clown bus!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 07 2015,6:57 am
^^like you have with Sanders? :dunce:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 08 2015,6:52 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 08 2015,8:21 am
^^ I suppose when the dems do it too. :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 08 2015,5:13 pm
:angry:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,5:53 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,6:00 am
^^yrs, I would have to agree with you there but (don't you just hate that? There always seems to be that "but") If the airlines did their own security they would have to be free to enforce security the way they see fit, no being accused of racial or religeous profiling.

As it is now TSA is a failure so typical of many fail gov. run entities.

< http://thehill.com/policy...ployees >

Thus ticket prices would have to increase.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,6:15 am
It‘s not only the TSA we’re on the hook for Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Controllers, and the cost of all theses airports!
The jet engine is one of the biggest fuel consumers, which drives up cost for US all and benefits few.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,6:18 am
Ronny took care of the air traffic controllers :rofl:

Turn it all over to the airlines, ticket prices might decline. :)
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,6:30 am
:dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,6:32 am
Ok, just one more( truck's warming up)

Notice he said the word "free" unions are fine, just don't force me to join :blush:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,11:39 am

(Expatriate @ Jun. 10 2015,6:15 am)
QUOTE
It‘s not only the TSA we’re on the hook for Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Controllers, and the cost of all theses airports!
The jet engine is one of the biggest fuel consumers, which drives up cost for US all and benefits few.

You really need to do research before you start spouting off :dunce:

< http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts...05.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,5:15 pm
:dunce: what's with your mumbo jumbo chart

a jet engine can suck 45 gpm at full throttle under load
that's even worse than your 3 mpg
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 10 2015,5:28 pm
^^ smart operator run 7mpg plus, if you looked at the numbers you'd see the largest consumer of petroleum is the general public driving cars.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 10 2015,5:43 pm
only because of numbers, the auto engine efficiency far exceeds that of a jet engine.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 11 2015,8:01 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 11 2015,9:24 am
^^I have to give Lib credit for this find but I really think you should read this page and then indulge in some self reflection :thumbsup:

Remember, I care :D
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 11 2015,1:54 pm
:crazy:
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 11 2015,3:07 pm
What you think SB?  Expat has a box of rocks and Lib has a bag of hammers.  I think they're cut from the same sheepskin.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 11 2015,3:26 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 11 2015,3:07 pm)
QUOTE
What you think SB?  Expat has a box of rocks and Lib has a bag of hammers.  I think they're cut from the same sheepskin.

Sheep :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 11 2015,3:31 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 11 2015,9:24 am)
QUOTE
^^I have to give Lib credit for this find but I really think you should read this page and then indulge in some self reflection :thumbsup:

Remember, I care :D

Hmmm, thought I posted a link there

< https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...heories >

All fixed :thumbsup:

Wonder how that happened, Jim Hanson?? :dunno:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 11 2015,3:52 pm
^^:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 11 2015,4:06 pm
Maddog quote:
QUOTE
What you think SB?  Expat has a box of rocks and Lib has a bag of hammers.  I think they're cut from the same sheepskin.

Moderator = troll, I've always wondered why MD and Hanson were titled Moderator!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 11 2015,6:20 pm
^^cause you're too stupid to do it?
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 11 2015,6:41 pm
^^Says a truck driver, a real rocket scientist from the bottom of the dung heap!
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 12 2015,1:04 am
^^you sure seem to throw that truck driver name around with disgust, remember, if you use it, consume it, wear it, have it, I had a part in bringing it to you.

At least I wake up every morning knowing I haven't leeched off of other :cool:
Posted by grassman on Jun. 12 2015,5:58 am
:D
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 12 2015,6:21 am
^^ very guilty :blush:

And if I have a dumb ass on my right that won't yield the lane I have "special" horns for them :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 12 2015,7:02 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 12 2015,7:12 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 12 2015,9:37 am
Wow? :dunce:

< http://portalseven.com/employm...0Carter >

Perhaps it didn't seem so bad with the fireside chats :dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 12 2015,9:40 am
Took awhile but I guess it does after a total f#kup like Jimmy

< http://portalseven.com/employm...0Reagan >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 12 2015,4:58 pm
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...l_terms >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 13 2015,3:35 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 14 2015,6:04 am
^^you like wikpedia so much let's try this one dummy😵

< https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 14 2015,8:00 am
Okun’s misery index is skewed in this situation, let me explain, the government (Paul Volcker’s) tight-money policy was an effort to control inflation. I’m not sure if you are old enough to remember, but the price of land jumped from under a thousand an acre to over three thousand, I believe there was a loss of confidence after Vietnam fell, Nixon’s impending impeachment Ford’s bumbling incompetence, a loss of faith in the dollar which led to a buying frenzy on credit.
The Federal Reserve board led by Volcker is widely credited with ending the United States crisis of the 1970s. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was lowered to 3.2% by 1983.

When you add to that, the Iranian crises and OPEC’s oil embargo which began in 1973 under Nixon, all in all the Carter years were successful, the country held together, inflation was controlled, he kept the Military Industrial Complex in check.

My case may different from yours, raised by Depression era parents I avoid debt like the plague, for me the high interest rates and falling prices, inflation clause Union contract were a real boon.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 14 2015,8:09 am
^^ in your opinion :rofl:

I remember it being terribly miserable during Carter's rein of stupidity. The only funny part was watching his brother embarrass him and slowly kill himself. :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 14 2015,3:41 pm
^^^ and you believe the Dems will do a better job? :rofl:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 14 2015,6:04 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 14 2015,8:26 pm
:dunce: so you keep thinking you know my party affiliation :dunce:

C'mon, I know you can figure it out :dunce: you can't actually be that dense :dunce:
Posted by grassman on Jun. 14 2015,10:40 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 14 2015,3:41 pm)
QUOTE
^^^ and you believe the Dems will do a better job? :rofl:  :rofl:

So you concur, we need to step out of the box and roll with someone like SANDERS! :beer:  :clap:  :thumbsup:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 15 2015,4:53 am
^^no Sanders would exspouse big gov. Even more
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 15 2015,6:02 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 15 2015,6:34 am
:p
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 15 2015,6:56 am
I think Sanders would be a welcome departure from politics Big Money as usual. How could he not be?

Remember Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results? It would be insane to keep voting for the same bought-and-paid-for party faithful candidates, expecting any sort of reform. The system is in dire need of some major overhaul. Voting for Billary or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker is not a step in that direction.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 15 2015,8:11 am
^^so let's stop doing the same thing over and over then stick our head in a wood chipper :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 15 2015,8:19 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 16 2015,6:49 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 16 2015,5:35 pm
^^
This...
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 16 2015,6:29 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 16 2015,9:04 pm
^^
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 17 2015,4:45 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 19 2015,8:31 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 19 2015,9:05 am
:D
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 19 2015,12:20 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 19 2015,1:15 pm
:(
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 19 2015,1:21 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 19 2015,2:02 pm
It's funny but if stroke lady takes the nomination dipsh!ts like expat will be all about her :rofl:
Posted by grassman on Jun. 19 2015,10:42 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 19 2015,2:02 pm)
QUOTE
It's funny but if stroke lady takes the nomination dipsh!ts like expat will be all about her :rofl:

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, PROBABLY NOT. As you can see, many of us are just plain sick and tired of the same ol chit.
Hop aboard and maybe we can save this country from total collapse. :thumbsup:
Posted by Common Citizen on Jun. 20 2015,1:25 am

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 19 2015,2:02 pm)
QUOTE
It's funny but if stroke lady takes the nomination dipsh!ts like expat will be all about her :rofl:

:thumbsup:

Ain't that the truth.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 20 2015,7:26 am
^ :p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 20 2015,8:11 am
:dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 20 2015,8:43 am
^^ :D
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 20 2015,10:22 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 20 2015,11:05 am
^^wow, that Brightens my day to look at that POS :(
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 22 2015,6:55 pm
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 22 2015,6:55 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 23 2015,4:00 pm
Expat seems to like the Chicago Tribune

< http://www.chicagotribune.com/busines...ry.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 24 2015,6:24 pm
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2015,6:32 am
US Presidential candidate Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA)
another tard using the same playbook with the same result!
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 25 2015,5:27 pm
Proof Republicans Have Gone Insane: Trump Comes In 2nd In GOP Presidential Poll
Here are the complete poll results, courtesy of Fox News:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 26 2015,6:30 pm
Here comes the fat boy, make room in that Republican Clown bus
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 26 2015,6:34 pm
^^most certainly :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 28 2015,7:21 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 28 2015,7:22 am
:D
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 28 2015,7:34 am
^^
< http://www.thinkfy.com/content...-ullico >
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 28 2015,10:34 am
:laugh:  what a joke, rightwing blogs as factual info  :rofl:  Only Dumbo
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 28 2015,1:27 pm

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2015,6:32 am)
QUOTE
US Presidential candidate Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA)
another tard using the same playbook with the same result!

What are the sources of that idiotic info-graphc?  I'm calling it out as BS.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 28 2015,3:55 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jun. 28 2015,1:27 pm)
QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jun. 25 2015,6:32 am)
QUOTE
US Presidential candidate Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (R-LA)
another tard using the same playbook with the same result!

What are the sources of that idiotic info-graphc?  I'm calling it out as BS.

Even the American Conservative is dissing Jindal with a headline like: How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana

Jindal came to office in 2008 with a surplus of around $1 billion now you’re in a 1.6 billion depict!

Where have you been under a rock?

< http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...uisiana >

< http://theadvocate.com/news/11576704-123/out-of-tricks-how-louisiana >

< http://www.nytimes.com/2015...ex.html >

< http://www.nola.com/politic...id.html >

< http://www.theatlantic.com/educati...nas-pub >

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sidenti >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 28 2015,4:39 pm
^^^
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 28 2015,6:50 pm
I'm not apologizing for Jindal, but in the same token you cannot lay this at his feet and say he is strictly to blame.

You have the federal recovery funds that dried up after years of rebuilding after Katrina, as well as the multitude of people/contractors that have left the area, combined with oblahblah's and the dolts in congress with their terrible economic ideas and odumbo's ostensible plan for punishing oil producers, let alone his hatred for anything in the south, etc.

The cost of private insurance going up is directly related to the aca.

But in the same token, our taxes have gone way down and we are making more money, so either it is our area that is in a nice protected financial bubble or this area isn't feeling the crunch as much as other areas of Louisiana.  Either way, I'd still rather live here than MN.

Not that it matters but nola.com hates anything that doesn't lean hard left and likes to slant their reporting.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 29 2015,6:45 am
^To quote Harry Truman “the buck stops here”, Jindal and his appointed administration are running the show, it’s
their leadership decision on policy that dictates the success or failure of your adopted home state.

Jindal is in the hole big time, he doesn’t have the option carry this kind of debt, he’s already made cuts without results, he’s going to have to raise revenue, that means taxes. It will be interesting to see who will bear the brunt of Jindal’s new taxation.

As for Minnesota, we’re # 1 in the Nation, America’s top State for Business, how’s the economic climate in Louisiana/46th, even Mississippi passed you guys at 43rd.


< http://www.cnbc.com/id/101747925 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 29 2015,7:16 am
I see Christie will announce today
Oh joy. :sarcasm:
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 29 2015,8:28 am
Since I have been here, there have been 3 or 4 ballot initiatives in how the state collects certain taxes and where it is to be allocated or to the out right elimination.  And they passed.  Then there was the ballot to remove the toll on the CCC (Cresent City Connection) and move the maintenance and security to the state, that passed at 90%.  Like I said, some of the short falls to the state are not all Jindal's fault.

I am making more money down here per yer than I was in MN, way better food, none of those stupid open bottle laws, you can walk around with alcohol all day long and not get bothered, way less firearm restrictions.  Did I mention the food? No god damn snow and ice, fireworks anytime of the year, just a lot less nanny state in general down here vs MN.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 29 2015,8:39 am
^^I've heard the fishing is fantastic but...

Snakes :(
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 29 2015,9:18 am
:p
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 29 2015,9:40 am

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 29 2015,8:39 am)
QUOTE
^^I've heard the fishing is fantastic but...

Snakes :(

Helps keep the rat population down.  Oh, by the way.  They do get big down there.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 29 2015,9:43 am
^^feed the needy?
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 29 2015,11:35 am
Louisiana.  :rofl: What a tard fest.

Almost as bad as Alabama.  :rofl:
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 29 2015,12:34 pm
That is a pic of a nutria, they were imported long time ago for their pelts, but now they are a nuisance pest, much like the feral hogs down here.  No limit on killing them either.

Tard fest?  pffst, whatever, if anything is a tard fest, it is MN.
MN the land of Fracken socialists, govt lovers and 10,000 nanny state laws.
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 29 2015,12:44 pm
Sorry GD.  Wasn't trying to start anything.  Jest having fun with SB's snake phobia.  :D
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jun. 29 2015,1:17 pm

(MADDOG @ Jun. 29 2015,12:44 pm)
QUOTE
Sorry GD.  Wasn't trying to start anything.  Jest having fun with SB's snake phobia.  :D

No harm no foul. maddog.  I'm not taking it personally, I'm taking this as a lil bit of razzing and throwing back some ribbing.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 29 2015,2:32 pm
^^everybody's picking on me😢
Posted by grassman on Jun. 30 2015,6:56 am

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 29 2015,2:32 pm)
QUOTE
^^everybody's picking on me��

My turn! :D
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 30 2015,6:58 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 30 2015,7:01 am
^^Where the hell have you been Lawnboy?
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 30 2015,7:02 am

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 29 2015,2:32 pm)
QUOTE
^^everybody's picking on me😢

Meh, we still love ya, ya big goon...  :D
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 30 2015,7:30 am
So how does an f-twit like this get supporters? Who in their right mind (no pun intended) stands with this moron..?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 30 2015,7:31 am
^^ I feel all warm and fuzzy :D
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 30 2015,8:35 am
You know that whole "I gotta reply to every post" bone in your head?

That's all well and good, but please, bring something to the table when that happens.

Okay..?
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 30 2015,9:43 am

(Botto 82 @ Jun. 30 2015,7:30 am)
QUOTE
So how does an f-twit like this get supporters? Who in their right mind (no pun intended) stands with this moron..?

It’s not just Cruz, when you look at the mass of Republican candidates all spouting the same old same, Repeal, Deregulate, cut Social Security and Medicare, crush the unions and when things get dull they go Benghazi, you’d think they're trying to lose the election.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jun. 30 2015,10:51 am

(Botto 82 @ Jun. 30 2015,8:35 am)
QUOTE
You know that whole "I gotta reply to every post" bone in your head?

That's all well and good, but please, bring something to the table when that happens.

Okay..?

I feel all warm and fuzzy and that's a good thing? :dunno:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 30 2015,11:59 am

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 30 2015,10:51 am)
QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Jun. 30 2015,8:35 am)
QUOTE
You know that whole "I gotta reply to every post" bone in your head?

That's all well and good, but please, bring something to the table when that happens.

Okay..?

I feel all warm and fuzzy and that's a good thing? :dunno:

Yes it is. Shine on, you crazy diamond.  :rockon:
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 30 2015,2:56 pm
Ah, yes.  Crazy Syd.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 30 2015,3:07 pm
Posted by grassman on Jun. 30 2015,8:20 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jun. 30 2015,7:01 am)
QUOTE
^^Where the hell have you been Lawnboy?

:D
Posted by irisheyes on Jul. 01 2015,10:41 am

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jun. 28 2015,6:50 pm)
QUOTE
combined with oblahblah's and the dolts in congress with their terrible economic ideas

The economy has improved dramatically.   :thumbsup:

QUOTE
odumbo's ostensible plan for punishing oil producers, let alone his hatred for anything in the south, etc.

"Punishing oil producers," if that's the case how do you explain them doing so well in the Bakken formation?  You'd be hard pressed to find a time in recent history where the nation has done better in oil exploration and production.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 03 2015,10:44 am
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 03 2015,11:55 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 03 2015,10:44 am)
QUOTE

:oops:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 03 2015,6:55 pm
:p
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 04 2015,1:33 am
^Nobody here on the right is going to have an answer for that.  :p

"Buhh, Socialism!" the polititards will scream... *yawn*
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 04 2015,1:49 am
^^I would but some arrogant ass will jump on me for responding to too many posts. :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 04 2015,9:29 pm
Bob Dole Looks Back
The former senator talks history and politics.

< http://www.aarp.org/politic...p=HPBB2 >
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 09 2015,9:54 am
And now a little something for all our right-wing self proclaimed Christian Evangelists...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 09 2015,10:17 am
^^I love how the dems proclaim to be so pious and Jesus like then turn around and attack Christians at every turn..
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 09 2015,10:25 am
For the most part Christianity has become the realm of the Republican hypocrite...
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 11 2015,6:41 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 11 2015,7:44 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 11 2015,8:50 am
^^ yep, he sort of a wide-assed wind bag :blush:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 11 2015,11:32 am
More chins than a San Francisco phone book.  :rofl:
Posted by grassman on Jul. 11 2015,3:39 pm
He is the poster boy for wpos!
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 12 2015,6:48 am
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 12 2015,7:01 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 12 2015,7:26 am
^^So now there's a political hack as a pope :(
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 12 2015,7:53 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 12 2015,4:53 pm
^^yes I did,
With absolutely no apologies or reservations.

Expat however likes to use religion as he sees fit,
Absolutely Godless
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 12 2015,4:54 pm
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 12 2015,5:11 pm
^^Actually, this is Expat religeon :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 12 2015,5:57 pm
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 13 2015,8:31 am

(Botto 82 @ Jul. 11 2015,11:32 am)
QUOTE
More chins than a San Francisco phone book.  :rofl:

Um, what are you saying?
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,8:55 am
^a picture is worth one thousand words..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,9:04 am
Looks like some of the clowns I'd see at the circus when I was a kid.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,9:26 am
GOP Chief Reince Priebus Calls Donald Trump to Tell Him to 'Tone It Down'
Trump says he won’t rule out independent run...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,9:29 am
^^Good, I hope he told him to FO :cool:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,9:43 am
I’m not sure what Trump is up to, he has a site but nothing on issues in print format..
< https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,9:45 am
Neither does stroke lady

Except for rehashing Buster's plans.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,9:59 am
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 13 2015,12:07 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 13 2015,9:26 am)
QUOTE
GOP Chief Reince Priebus Calls Donald Trump to Tell Him to 'Tone It Down'
Trump says he won’t rule out independent run...

Maybe, maybe not?  Doesn't matter much. < Trump will speak his mind. >  Gotta like that about the guy.  I wish more of the party would stand a little firmer on their beliefs instead of constantly being pushed around by to PC libbies.  At this pace, the looney  :oops:  left will destroy what our ancestors built.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,12:32 pm
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,12:58 pm
It’s not that can’t find common ground with any Politian, Donald included, unfortunately I believe Trump is to short fused to have his
finger on the button.
Trump hasn’t of yet included issues in a written format, or how he intends to solve our Nations problem.

OnTheIssues follows candidates, provides info, reading Donald’s page shows his changing views, inconsistent at best.

< http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,1:44 pm
^^and stroke lady is consistent? :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,1:50 pm
< http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm >
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,2:00 pm
:p
< http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 13 2015,2:15 pm
^^most likely not viable
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 13 2015,2:20 pm
Nice letter to the editor about Jeff Backer, R. 12A Mn. representing the area around Fergus Falls and Alexandria.

QUOTE
< Who’s your friend? >


Now that the dust has settled somewhat on the past legislative session, we can review an area of great controversy, the buffer strip bill. The first thing to understand is that there was already a buffer strip law in place for lakes and public waterways to prevent erosion. The problem was that the existing laws were not being uniformly enforced as they should have been.
 

Governor Dayton worked to get 50 foot buffer strips in fields and drainage ditches. Supposedly, these one-size-fits-all buffers would cure all the problems of nitrates and phosphates in the water. But there was no compensation at all to the landowners. The Fifth Amendment clearly states there can be no taking of property without just compensation to the owner.

Though no buffer bill previously passed the House, during the wee hours on Sunday morning before the legislative session ended, a surprise buffer bill came before committee at 12:30 a.m. The hope was to let this new bill, unread by rural legislators, sail through committee under the cover of darkness.

It would have worked had it not been for Jeff Backer. He waged war along with three other rural legislators from 12:30 to 3:30 in the morning to stop this bill. He went head-to-head against the DFL and even against the metro-based leadership of his own party to protect our rural interests. Together, all four of them stopped the anti-landowners’ buffer bill in committee at 3:30 a.m.

The battle continued the next day and a bipartisan bill passed that the governor said he would sign, but he changed his mind and vetoed it. However, this same bill was later signed by the Governor in the following special session.

So “who’s your friend” in desperate times? Do you depend on the former representative who repeatedly and routinely voted lock step with his metro friends? McNamar would not have stood up to his friends in the DFL until 3:30 a.m. on Sunday. His metro friends do not share or even appreciate our rural values.

A true friend is one who will go to the mat to fight hard and difficult battles for rural values even if it means locking horns with his own party. Jeff Backer is the real friend and supporter of rural values.


Republican True Colors  :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2015,2:20 pm
that damn socialist trump

Donald Trump: "We Must Have Universal Healthcare"


< http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/donald-trump_557477.html[/URL]
Posted by grassman on Jul. 13 2015,5:44 pm

(MADDOG @ Jul. 13 2015,12:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Jul. 13 2015,9:26 am)
QUOTE
GOP Chief Reince Priebus Calls Donald Trump to Tell Him to 'Tone It Down'
Trump says he won’t rule out independent run...

Maybe, maybe not?  Doesn't matter much. < Trump will speak his mind. >  Gotta like that about the guy.  I wish more of the party would stand a little firmer on their beliefs instead of constantly being pushed around by to PC libbies.  At this pace, the looney  :oops:  left will destroy what our ancestors built.

Priebus is a LIBBY?
Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 13 2015,6:16 pm
Throwing a bone. I suspect if he were to see the costs and waisted money on the websites alone,  he'd say, You're fired.
Posted by grassman on Jul. 13 2015,8:13 pm

(MADDOG @ Jul. 13 2015,2:20 pm)
QUOTE
Nice letter to the editor about Jeff Backer, R. 12A Mn. representing the area around Fergus Falls and Alexandria.

QUOTE
< Who’s your friend? >


Now that the dust has settled somewhat on the past legislative session, we can review an area of great controversy, the buffer strip bill. The first thing to understand is that there was already a buffer strip law in place for lakes and public waterways to prevent erosion. The problem was that the existing laws were not being uniformly enforced as they should have been.
 

Governor Dayton worked to get 50 foot buffer strips in fields and drainage ditches. Supposedly, these one-size-fits-all buffers would cure all the problems of nitrates and phosphates in the water. But there was no compensation at all to the landowners. The Fifth Amendment clearly states there can be no taking of property without just compensation to the owner.

Though no buffer bill previously passed the House, during the wee hours on Sunday morning before the legislative session ended, a surprise buffer bill came before committee at 12:30 a.m. The hope was to let this new bill, unread by rural legislators, sail through committee under the cover of darkness.

It would have worked had it not been for Jeff Backer. He waged war along with three other rural legislators from 12:30 to 3:30 in the morning to stop this bill. He went head-to-head against the DFL and even against the metro-based leadership of his own party to protect our rural interests. Together, all four of them stopped the anti-landowners’ buffer bill in committee at 3:30 a.m.

The battle continued the next day and a bipartisan bill passed that the governor said he would sign, but he changed his mind and vetoed it. However, this same bill was later signed by the Governor in the following special session.

So “who’s your friend” in desperate times? Do you depend on the former representative who repeatedly and routinely voted lock step with his metro friends? McNamar would not have stood up to his friends in the DFL until 3:30 a.m. on Sunday. His metro friends do not share or even appreciate our rural values.

A true friend is one who will go to the mat to fight hard and difficult battles for rural values even if it means locking horns with his own party. Jeff Backer is the real friend and supporter of rural values.


Republican True Colors  :thumbsup:

Very nice. Now I wonder why these reps don't stand up against Oil companies and pipe runners like that? ???
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 14 2015,6:21 am
:p
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 14 2015,9:21 am

(grassman @ Jul. 13 2015,8:13 pm)
QUOTE
Very nice. Now I wonder why these reps don't stand up against Oil companies and pipe runners like that? ???

I think most of the GOP candidates are in favor of phasing out the Renewable Fuel Standard.  That's a start.  Forcing people to buy something they don't necessarily want is not good policy.  :p   Forcing people to pay for something that isn't necessarily efficient is wrong.

Oh, wait.  Isn't this the obamacare thread?  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 15 2015,7:47 am
Posted by grassman on Jul. 15 2015,8:26 am

(MADDOG @ Jul. 14 2015,9:21 am)
QUOTE

(grassman @ Jul. 13 2015,8:13 pm)
QUOTE
Very nice. Now I wonder why these reps don't stand up against Oil companies and pipe runners like that? ???

I think most of the GOP candidates are in favor of phasing out the Renewable Fuel Standard.  That's a start.  Forcing people to buy something they don't necessarily want is not good policy.  :p   Forcing people to pay for something that isn't necessarily efficient is wrong.

Oh, wait.  Isn't this the obamacare thread?  :rofl:

In reference to affordable care act, that was CC's queen bee that part thrown in.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 20 2015,1:53 pm
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 20 2015,2:12 pm
Ah, so now your true colors shine thru. :p  :blush:
Posted by Glad I Left on Jul. 20 2015,2:19 pm
I swear this site is becoming facebook.. I needed to check the URL again just to be sure :p
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 20 2015,3:35 pm
:D
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 20 2015,6:53 pm
Yes, I can see that, especially after Buster has destroyed their economy.
Posted by irisheyes on Jul. 22 2015,4:28 am

(Self-Banished @ Jul. 20 2015,6:53 pm)
QUOTE
Yes, I can see that, especially after Buster has destroyed their economy.

Kentucky is a red state, and red states often treat anyone with less than 250k as a redheaded step-child.  As for "Buster" and the economy, I know you won't believe me, but we're not in the Bush recession anymore.
< Family Guy clip >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 22 2015,5:28 am
Don't get me wrong, I love Family Guy and forgive me if I didn't even bother to click on your link but our economic numbers suck, especially in the unemployed. Expat's hero seems to agree

< http://freebeacon.com/politic...is-10-5 >



Housing is starting to improve but after six years? I suppose it took awhile because of a poisonous home loan policy endorsed by Dems that exploded in our face.

Wait till next year with Bustercare :(  :frusty:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 22 2015,7:59 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 22 2015,9:10 am
^^
Posted by grassman on Jul. 22 2015,10:12 pm
:laugh:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 24 2015,8:38 pm
Kentucky. Isn't that where that corrupt POS Senate Majority Leader is from?
Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 24 2015,11:20 pm

(Botto 82 @ Jul. 24 2015,8:38 pm)
QUOTE
Kentucky. Isn't that where that corrupt POS Senate Majority Leader is from?

:clap: that goes for the senior leadership in both parties. Reid is a d-bag.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 25 2015,7:46 am
:p
Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 25 2015,8:39 am
Where did you find the CEO's hourly wage?  I'll bet you the original Mona Lisa he isn't paid hourly.

And if you can't tell the difference between the responsibilities of a donut making broom sweeper and a person running a multi-billion dollar company, then we're all thankful you're in retirement were you can no longer "contribute" to society.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 25 2015,10:36 am

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 25 2015,8:39 am)
QUOTE
Where did you find the CEO's hourly wage?  I'll bet you the original Mona Lisa he isn't paid hourly.

And if you can't tell the difference between the responsibilities of a donut making broom sweeper and a person running a multi-billion dollar company, then we're all thankful you're in retirement were you can no longer "contribute" to society.

:dunce: Information on publicly traded stock is available in lots of places, this guy made $10,204,803 in 2014 yet would abolish the minimum wage.

< My Webpage >
Posted by Marneman on Jul. 26 2015,10:28 am
Well election season has started and we're hearing the same tired old stories again from both sides.  But the one that has gotten so old is the one about how the Republicans are going to end Social Security!   I've heard this same "story" from Democratic supporters for the last thirty years, but I've never seen any proof.  Please don't link some written slanted story or edited video.  If you want to prove this story show us some live unedited video of any currant republican canidate who is stupid enough to cut his own politcal throat by demanding an end to Social Security!  You can't so please but that tired old story out to pasture and move on.  Thank You.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 26 2015,1:21 pm
^Might be easier for you to give US the name of a Republican who isn’t talking "entitlement reform" meaning Social Security and Medicare.
You keep your head in the sand and when these Republican A**holes dismantle both Social Security and Medicare you’ll be up sh!t creek when your retirement date roles up!
Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 26 2015,3:32 pm
How old is the Duncan Doenutz guy? Maybe he thinks it's 1972 still.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 26 2015,5:12 pm
well, $15 per hour to pour coffee and sling donuts? ' could be the 70's, Fantasy Island :dunce:

Careful what you wish for...

< http://youtu.be/iQ_fSP3LGw8 >
Posted by stardust14 on Jul. 26 2015,11:39 pm

(Expatriate @ Jul. 09 2015,10:25 am)
QUOTE
For the most part Christianity has become the realm of the Republican hypocrite...

Take out the biased word "republican" and you have it. :clap:  :clap:  :clap:
Posted by stardust14 on Jul. 26 2015,11:43 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 25 2015,8:39 am)
QUOTE
And if you can't tell the difference between the responsibilities of a donut making broom sweeper and a person running a multi-billion dollar company

One works for a living. The other lives off others work.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 27 2015,6:01 am

(stardust14 @ Jul. 26 2015,11:43 pm)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jul. 25 2015,8:39 am)
QUOTE
And if you can't tell the difference between the responsibilities of a donut making broom sweeper and a person running a multi-billion dollar company

One works for a living. The other lives off others work.

So let's all just go out and start a business, everyone work for theirselves? There are always going to be leaders and followers in life.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 28 2015,7:19 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 28 2015,11:21 am
^^ just another political hack in history😵
This one killed 100k plus though. :p
He had that going for him :thumbsup:  :sarcasm:
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 28 2015,11:43 am
Q:  What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

A: < THEY SENT THE ILLEGAL ALIENS PACKING! >
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 29 2015,7:12 am
The wealthy create jobs, Businesses create jobs? Really? NO.
Find a business without customers and tell me how many employees it has.
Customers with living wage jobs create jobs, this is the base of Demand Side Economics, Democrat platform policy.
The Republicans call for the same old supply side policies, tax breaks for big business and the wealthy, this is the trickle down we’ve seen destroy our nations middleclass.
We need Bernie Sanders and the Democrats to reverse our downward spiral, to renegotiate our disastrous trade policy that offshores our jobs, who puts the kibosh on Republican legislation to undermine the working class.
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 29 2015,7:47 am
:p
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 30 2015,7:23 am
The Republican National Committee has announced a schedule for nine debates with the possibility of three additional forums as well.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 30 2015,9:31 am
And how many debates has the DNC organized so far?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 30 2015,9:45 am
^^ none, the mudslinging would bury stroke lady. :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 30 2015,10:31 am

(MADDOG @ Jul. 30 2015,9:31 am)
QUOTE
And how many debates has the DNC organized so far?

SB quote
QUOTE
^^ none, the mudslinging would bury stroke lady.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 30 2015,10:46 am
Sometimes you have to ask more than once to get a straight answer.

QUOTE
And how many debates has the DNC organized so far?
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 30 2015,11:09 am
They’ve announced six primary debates, starting this fall, as of yet specific dates and places haven’t been released.
The democrat field is much smaller less divided than the Republican field where you have 16 candidates competing.

< http://www.democrats.org/post...debates >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 30 2015,2:48 pm
Who's going to be at the dem debates??
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 31 2015,7:50 am
^^ :dunce:  :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 31 2015,8:28 am
Well, I'm really starting to think strike lady's not going to be there.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 31 2015,8:54 am

(Expatriate @ Jul. 31 2015,7:50 am)
QUOTE
^^ :dunce:  :rofl:

Robert Reich

< Sorry, Mr. Reich: Your Economics Grade Is Still F >

< Robert Reich's F Minus In Economics: False Facts, False Theories >

< 'You Are a Pyromaniac In a Field of Strawmen' >

< Ex-Clinton official Robert Reich delivers lecture on greed while earning $240G to teach one class >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 31 2015,10:36 am
^^ isn't he a short little sh!t with a napoleonic complex??
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 31 2015,11:31 am
Give the man a free weekend at Elba.  :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 01 2015,7:34 am
^ :dunce:
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/news...big-mac >
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 01 2015,8:11 am
^^and it'll be less than $.17 if they just put in kiosks :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 03 2015,7:01 am
:p
You're right some people should make $2.13 per Hr. you idiots!
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 03 2015,8:35 am
More and more of these kiosks are coming, for the hell of it I tried to use nothing but kiosks this weekend to do my shopping. Grocery store, hardware store etc. the only place I had a clerk was the truck parks counter.

Careful what you wish for.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 03 2015,10:06 am

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 03 2015,8:35 am)
QUOTE
More and more of these kiosks are coming, for the hell of it I tried to use nothing but kiosks this weekend to do my shopping. Grocery store, hardware store etc. the only place I had a clerk was the truck parks counter.

Careful what you wish for.

You're an absolute dope if you think this crap is taking the nation in any kind of positive direction. What are you? Just flat-out stupid, and looking for someone to pretend that isn't your most notable trait?
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 03 2015,10:21 am
And what would you call the person that believes a job flippin' burger is suppose to be a career rather than a job more suited for teens and college kids looking to pick up some cash and learn the value of a job or a part timer looking for a little extra cash?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 03 2015,12:45 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 03 2015,10:21 am)
QUOTE
And what would you call the person that believes a job flippin' burger is suppose to be a career

Ummmm, Botto?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 03 2015,12:55 pm
Pretty much every Cub Foods in the cities has kiosks, the one I was at had six stations with one girl overseeing them. The Home Depot I go to has 4, one person overseeing them. Even Costco has a couple of lanes sf service, WalMart too.

If it becomes more fesible to use automation, more cost effective, companies are going to avail themselves to it.

Hat's the matter Botto, feeling nostalgic for buggy whips?
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 03 2015,1:16 pm
I did the soldier thing, back when my minimum-wage job as a dishwasher paid a lousy three-thirty-five, and I never once imagined that I was somehow entitled to three times more than that. All that said, I could buy a lot more with that $3.35 than I can for $7.25 now. Anybody who's okay with how that's all turned out, and dismisses it with some sage advice like, "work smarter," or, "Life's tough, buttercup," needs to get throat punched.

We used to leave each generation a better chance than we had. Now we've just given up. Oh well... When you accept failure as an option, it's no too long in coming afterward. And it doesn't limp in catching up.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 03 2015,2:16 pm

(Botto 82 @ Aug. 03 2015,1:16 pm)
QUOTE
I did the soldier thing, back when my minimum-wage job as a dishwasher paid a lousy three-thirty-five, and I never once imagined that I was somehow entitled to three times more than that. All that said, I could buy a lot more with that $3.35 than I can for $7.25 now. Anybody who's okay with how that's all turned out, and dismisses it with some sage advice like, "work smarter," or, "Life's tough, buttercup," needs to get throat punched.

We used to leave each generation a better chance than we had. Now we've just given up. Oh well... When you accept failure as an option, it's no too long in coming afterward. And it doesn't limp in catching up.

I too worked for minimum wage at one time, it's tough. But is washing dishes or flippin' burgers worth $15 an hour? I hardly think so. If you don't like your present situation, work smarter, work harder. A lot of these people are fu'kup's who didn't pay attension in school, are arrogant and insubordinate, can't show up for work on time or a myriad of other lame ass excuses.

As far as accepting failure? This is not an option, not one little bit because if one accepts failure once it just keeps coming back around

Throat punch? Wow, you are an angry one :rofl:
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 03 2015,2:38 pm
In the '70s, my $4.50 or $4.65 minimum didn't seem to buy my a whole lot.  Enough to get by perhaps, but not enough to maintain decent living expenses.  You have to stop and realize Botto, that some things in the work category have changed.  When I was young, town boys mowed lawns, shoveled sidewalks and did odd jobs to earn money to buy a bike, a cycle or their first car.  Now adults have taken the jobs as a living.

Minimum wages in Minnesota aren't bad.  They just went up again.  
QUOTE
< KARE >  Minnesota's minimum wage increased to $9 an hour Saturday. It's the second of three increases tied to a law passed in 2014.

The pay raise affects about 288,000 Minnesotans, including workers at Great Waters Brewing Company in St. Paul.

"The impact will be felt right away. The next pay cycle, the business will feel the difference," said Eric Nelson, general manager of Great Waters Brewing Company.

This latest increase makes Minnesota the state with the highest minimum wage in the Midwest. According to Nelson, the business has been preparing for the change.

"Even though it's spanned over the course of the year, it is still hard to swallow for some operations like ours. Do I personally think it could go up more? Yeah. I think these workers work hard. I think minimum wage workers deserve to live a fulfilled life," Nelson said.

But Great Waters Brewing Company will have to pass on those costs to its customers. Nelson said they also hope to make up the difference by coaching servers on how to sell more to each guest.

"Small businesses live on small margins and those costs will need to be passed on or businesses will close," he said.

Nelson gave the example of coffee going from $2 to $2.50 or a pretzel's price jumping from $4 to $5.

"There are minimum wage workers that help produce or pick the foods that we use. Those prices will go up as well. That won't be immediate but that will be felt at restaurants like ours," he said.

While food prices will rise, Nelson expects more people may choose to dine out with their extra money.

Servers expect to see larger tips, as well, with a higher percentage being added to a customer's final bill.

Minimum wage in Minnesota will rise again next August from $9 to $9.50. After that, increases will be tied to inflation.
 I'd be willing to bet you weren't trying to raise a family washing dishes in some greasy spoon.  Even back when rocks were soft.  Back when you were still young, parents had a different philosophy in bettering the world for their kids.  Today, parents teach their kids differently.  Hard work to earn a dime isn't one of them.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 03 2015,3:34 pm
:p
Posted by grassman on Aug. 03 2015,5:42 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 03 2015,2:38 pm)
QUOTE
In the '70s, my $4.50 or $4.65 minimum didn't seem to buy my a whole lot.  Enough to get by perhaps, but not enough to maintain decent living expenses.  You have to stop and realize Botto, that some things in the work category have changed.  When I was young, town boys mowed lawns, shoveled sidewalks and did odd jobs to earn money to buy a bike, a cycle or their first car.  Now adults have taken the jobs as a living.

I guess I don't understand what mowing lawns and shoveling snow has to with adults doing that for a living. What does that have to do with a living wage? :dunno:  I did them things when I was young. I did not make even close to the kind of money I do today. Your point is nothing. Kids would rather play than work today. You know, let kids be kids. Besides, kids don't get protection of a livable wage.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 03 2015,5:55 pm
^^ my son had old lawn mowers he'd fix ( he called them curbies because he'd find them free at the curb) he had lawn accounts and sold some of the mowers. Kid bought his own car at 17.

There needs to be more kids with an entrepreneurial spirit, not these slugs that sit on the couch.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 07 2015,7:06 am
Fox news debate, they seemed to play softball with every candidate except Trump.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 07 2015,7:48 am
^^ yeah, for the most part, Fiorina looked damned good in the matinee show.😄
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2015,9:29 am

(grassman @ Aug. 03 2015,5:42 pm)
QUOTE
I guess I don't understand what mowing lawns and shoveling snow has to with adults doing that for a living. What does that have to do with a living wage? :dunno:  I did them things when I was young. I did not make even close to the kind of money I do today. Your point is nothing. Kids would rather play than work today. You know, let kids be kids. Besides, kids don't get protection of a livable wage.

I guess part of the point I was making is the change of what type of work some think should have a living wage attached to it.  Mowing lawns, shoveling snow or being a dishwasher was something normally done by a school kid or college student.  Not someone trying to make a living from.  Being a waitress at the local café or the bagger at the grocery store.  Those jobs are now being done by adults as their main source of income.

Kids didn't want to work years ago either, but our parents push our work ethics off onto us.  The parents of kids just a few years younger than me didn't.

A couple years back, I had my 11 y.o. nephew come over to mow my yard.  He had never mowed a lawn before.  I watched and guided him for about twenty minutes when he decided he needed a break.  That was the end of it.  He didn't want to do it anymore, but I still paid him for what he did.  I gave him a generous $10 to which he looked at me a said, "That all I get?"  He never offered to come again to earn some money.  He gets his for free.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 07 2015,9:47 am
Ted Cruz stood by his "O'Connel is a liar" remarks to Congress. That took guts, I'll admit.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 07 2015,10:46 am
^^ummmm, that's McConnell, yes he is a liar.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2015,12:24 pm
Ya know, SB.  That seems to be the difference.  When Reid and Pelosi were sitting in the big chairs, they could do no wrong as far as the libbies are concerned.  Now that McConnell and Boehner are there.  Well, neither would have gotten my vote.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 07 2015,1:17 pm
^^ except for a very few I think they're all crooks playing an orchestrated game.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 07 2015,1:57 pm
Amazing how the richest counties in America are very near D.C. Funny how that works.

Yeah. Funny. Like a shart.
Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 07 2015,2:01 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 07 2015,12:24 pm)
QUOTE
Ya know, SB.  That seems to be the difference.  When Reid and Pelosi were sitting in the big chairs, they could do no wrong as far as the libbies are concerned.  Now that McConnell and Boehner are there.  Well, neither would have gotten my vote.

I noticed the same trend on this forum site.  

The libbies never eat their own.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2015,2:01 pm

(Expatriate @ Aug. 07 2015,7:06 am)
QUOTE
Fox news debate, they seemed to play softball with every candidate except Trump.

Opinions are like a*******, everybody has one.

QUOTE
The < main debate >started around 8 p.m. and featured:
◾Donald Trump
◾Ted Cruz
◾Ben Carson
◾Chris Christie
◾John Kasich
◾Rand Paul
◾Marco Rubio
◾Jeb Bush
◾Scott Walker
◾Mike Huckabee

One member of the local Democratic committee said he was impressed with some of the questions of the first debate, saying there weren't any soft questions. He did say the candidates avoided providing solutions to some of the issues, though.


QUOTE
The only news network that matters in a GOP primary is Fox News and I suspect their coverage of Trump might not be that kind.

Of the more traditional candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich were both excellent. They’re both very talented politicians. In a more typical debate, they might easily have been the winners. But this was not a typical debate.

Of the others, Jeb Bush and Gov. Scott Walker were solid but overshadowed by better performances. Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee underpeformed significantly. Ben Carson is so soft-spoken it was hard for him to get noticed.

Finally, the Fox News anchors were excellent. They were prepared and had < tough questions >for every candidate.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2015,2:09 pm
Perhaps the lowlight of the debate.


< View on YouTube >

And one of the highlights.


< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 07 2015,3:27 pm
I think the best of the debate was Fiorina, pretty fricken sharp :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 07 2015,3:56 pm
My opinion here is unbiased, you all know I'm a liberal, Fox had it in for Trump, they crucified the Donald..
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 07 2015,4:08 pm

(Expatriate @ Aug. 07 2015,3:56 pm)
QUOTE
My opinion here is unbiased,

We know.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 07 2015,4:51 pm
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 07 2015,4:59 pm
CHQ has even referred to Fox as the Bush News Network

< http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20829 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 08 2015,7:53 am
I'm really starting to like this woman :D

< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video...od.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 08 2015,8:52 am
^^Sorry, the page you are requesting could not be found
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 08 2015,9:12 am
This error (HTTP 403 Forbidden) means that Internet Explorer was able to connect to the website, but it does not have permission to view the webpage.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 08 2015,9:16 am
< try this one > then click on the proper video "Fiorina Post-Debate Faceoff With Chris Matthews: I'll Debate Hillary On Benghazi, Server, Planned Parenthood" on right hand side of page.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 08 2015,9:27 am
thanks, just letting SB know his link malfunctioned.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 08 2015,9:41 am
^^ no problem and Ty dog
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 08 2015,10:57 am
I don't think I've ran across a site that was a good web address but not have permission to link.   :dunno:
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 10 2015,7:24 am

(Expatriate @ Aug. 07 2015,3:56 pm)
QUOTE
My opinion here is unbiased,

Wow, just like mine :rofl:  :flame:
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 10 2015,7:50 am
:p no bias, that was my opinion on Trump, meaning I could care less who the Republican party runs. Fox News biased their questions in the Debate.
Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 10 2015,12:39 pm
I can see how the list below would freak any socialist like Expat into cutting on the Tea Party.

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 10 2015,2:13 pm
Trump's Republican support holds strong post-debate - Reuters/Ipsos poll 24%

< http://www.reuters.com/article...0150810 >
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 13 2015,6:01 am

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 10 2015,12:39 pm)
QUOTE
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Conservatives are not truly for less government and balanced budgets if you also want more spending on military, lower taxes, and a per-emptive war in Iran.

Voodoo economics and a bloated defense budget combined with several wars have proven that you can't have tax cuts AND billion dollar planes to bomb countries that never attacked us while saying we should have a balanced budget.  Nothing Donald Trump or Ben Carson says will change this.
:soapbox:
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 13 2015,6:39 am
^^ Ok, your turn, so you think you're smarter than both these gentlemen?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 22 2015,6:19 pm
We need some fun :D

< http://youtu.be/ufGlBv8Z3NU >
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 25 2015,7:01 am
:p < http://reaganbushdebt.org/ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2015,7:38 am
^ page not found.😢
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 25 2015,10:03 am
I think what he's trying to tell you is the national debt has gone up and it's all Reagan and Bushes' fault as this shows from < factcheck.org >.
QUOTE
Federal Debt

The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office.

Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent.

Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running. The U.S. finished the most recent fiscal year with a deficit of $483 billion. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that unless Congress acts to trim future spending or raise future taxes, or some combination of both, those annual deficits will soon be rising again. The most recent “baseline” budget projection, which CBO issued in August, forecasts that under current law the deficit will rise above half a trillion in fiscal 2016 and hit $960 billion within a decade.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 25 2015,10:04 am
Whoops, wrong facts.  :p
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 25 2015,10:47 am
Did you ever stop to think that the debt rose so sharply during Obama's first term because of:

1) Bush II's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and

2) Bailing the country out of the fiscal debacle in 2008, something that ALSO happened on Bush II's watch.

:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2015,11:47 am
^^ or maybe Clintons community reinvestment BS.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 25 2015,1:47 pm
Perhaps even...
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 26 2015,6:50 am
ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


According to < http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt...to4.htm > , the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to < http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np > and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (< http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm >).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

During his administration, George W. Bush
increased the national debt by $4,901,104,747,205.59
and personally approved of the creation of 46% of the entire national debt,
in only 8 years.

Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative", and through the elimination of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch. Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to increase the size of the annual Federal budget in order to support and restore the economy, and then sustain that budget, to avoid another collapse.

The result of George W. Bush's Borrow-And-Spend Republicanism was a 2009 annual Federal government budget of $3,517,677,000,000, and an economy too weak to avoid recession from cutting that budget.

Under President Barack Obama, Federal government spending was lowered by $61,464,000,000 in 2010, then raised from 2011-2013, for a total of $285,687,000,000 in new debt attributable to the first term Obama Administration (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls).

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's Borrow-And-Spend Republican administrations oversaw, approved, or caused to be spent, almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $1,221,051,693,151.00.

The current calculation on the site is based on the U.S. Treasury's published Total Public Debt Outstanding as of Monday, August 24, 2015, when the debt was $18,151,254,619,016.80. On Tuesday, September 04, 2007, the debt was $8,995,145,905,720.62.

This means that with the current national debt around $18,158,172,393,678.20, we're adding $3,145,348,235.42 per day, or $36,404.49 per second.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 26 2015,7:35 am
^^^ from a Gov. controlled site "yawn" :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 26 2015,7:41 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 26 2015,8:08 am
^ I think you've got to take EVERYTHING on the web with a grain of salt, it's boobs like you that'll take something as gospel, especially something that fits your agenda.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 27 2015,6:13 am

(Self-Banished @ Aug. 26 2015,8:08 am)
QUOTE
^ I think you've got to take EVERYTHING on the web with a grain of salt, it's boobs like you that'll take something as gospel, especially something that fits your agenda.

QUOTE
from a Gov. controlled site "yawn" :dunce:


So links to figures and dates at the Treasury are bogus but your links to the World Nut Daily are valid...
Does it echo when the wind blows though that empty cavity between your ears?
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 27 2015,8:03 am
^^ no, but I'll bet when your doc checks your ears he smiles and thinks to himself      
"There is light at the end of the tunnel"
Posted by Common Citizen on Aug. 28 2015,11:30 am

(irisheyes @ Aug. 13 2015,6:01 am)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Aug. 10 2015,12:39 pm)
QUOTE
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Conservatives are not truly for less government and balanced budgets if you also want more spending on military, lower taxes, and a per-emptive war in Iran.

Voodoo economics and a bloated defense budget combined with several wars have proven that you can't have tax cuts AND billion dollar planes to bomb countries that never attacked us while saying we should have a balanced budget.  Nothing Donald Trump or Ben Carson says will change this.
:soapbox:

Says who?  You?  pfft...  Is that your liberal response by default?

You're confusing RINO decision making and ideology with Tea Party conservative ideology.

next...
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 20 2015,5:53 am
QUOTE
Ben Bernanke: I’m Ditching The Republican Party Because Of Their ‘Stupid Economic Conspiracies’
by Steven Bernstein • October 13, 2015

Ben Bernanke, former Bush appointee to Federal Reserve Chairman and former Princeton Economics professor slammed modern Republican economic policies in his new memoir. According to Bernanke, a life-long Republican, the far-right extremism that has taken over the Republican Party in the name of extreme conservatism: “It’s the stupid economics.…[they] saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard.”

Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agrees, saying that “Bernanke’s right; these views aren’t conservative – they’re kooky.” Republicans shut down the government in 2013 over disputes regarding the debt limit and the size of our national deficit. They held the raising of the debt ceiling hostage in a desperate attempt to reduce government debt derail President Obama’s progressive agenda – a 16-day-long shutdown that is estimated to have cost our economy $24 billion and incalculable damage to the Republican brand. This easily preventable economic instability during a fragile recovery led Bernanke to condemn the Republican “fiscal policymakers, [who] far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it…it is like a family running up large credit card bills and then refusing to pay.”  Something we may be able to forgive our neighbors for, but not our elected representatives — “nothing justifies taking the economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt limit.”

Bernanke notes that “continual run-ins with hard-right Republicans – such as noted Fed critic Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman – gradually pushed him away from the party that first put him in charge of the Fed in 2006, adding that “I tried to listen carefully and accept thoughtful criticisms…But it seemed to me that the crisis had helped to radicalize large parts of the Republican Party.”

There is a litany of recent events that illustrate Bernanke’s and Stone’s beliefs about the continued craziness and radicalization that now represent the Republican Party. As a political party, Republicans refuse to display any sense of responsibility by continuing to threaten the economy and the American people. Failing to learn their lesson, once again the Republicans are threatening to shut down the government over the discredited phony Planned Parenthood videos unless the organization, which provides healthcare services to millions of women and men, was defunded.

The Republicans overwhelmingly lost this battle in Congress, but had they succeeded, they had no problem with the fact that 46 million Americans could have gone hungry. The loss ultimately led to the resignation of Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), who ran into opposition from the small but powerful fringe group in his own party, the forty members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, over his lack of willingness to shut down the government – again.

Given the radical crazy behavior that has become the GOP, one of the last moderate Republicans is giving up on the party for good. “I lost patience with Republicans’ susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right. I didn’t leave the Republican Party. I felt that the party left me.”
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,5:50 am
Round 3, no knockouts, same old same, just a big brawl, no unified message or path for our Nation.. It's difficult to tell if any of these candidates are sane!  



       
       
       
       
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,7:01 am
^^ as with the dems? Excuse me, the two dems that are left and the frothing nut job?

Pretty good de ate last night, even pointed out that stroke lady is lying her fat ass off. :p
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,7:24 am
QUOTE
Pretty good de ate last night, even pointed out that stroke lady is lying her fat ass off. :p

I must have missed that, which one of these lowbrows wasted OUR time with attacks?  


Way too many questions avoided, rather the candidates just blew their own horns. to many flip flops, when their policy
was questioned they really couldn't defend their plans.
A few talked the talk but they had no fix, they just want to reduce the government and cut taxes and turn OUR Nation into the Wild Wild West..
How do you pay our nations bills cutting taxes and exporting jobs?
Republican Reform is just another phrase for nothing left to lose!
Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 29 2015,8:13 am
The debate was a complete waste of time. It was never about debating policy and issues. It was entirely about vetting the most charismatic plastic rock star candidate. You might as well have put them in front of a panel with Howard Stern and Howie Mandel. Like almost everything else on television, it pandered to the dumbest America in memory.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,8:37 am
^^ sounds like you two boobs didn't even watch the debate :dunce: you must have waited for morning to watch lame stream for your opinion. :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,8:46 am

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 29 2015,8:37 am)
QUOTE
^^ sounds like you two boobs didn't even watch the debate :dunce: you must have waited for morning to watch lame stream for your opinion. :blush:

On the contrary dear Dumbo sounds like you didn't watch the debate!
Perhaps you can answer my question and tell me which of candidates attacked Clinton for a Benghazi lie??  


       
       
       
       
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,10:52 am
^^ that would be Rubio you dumbass, here's a link,

< http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-t...2575188 >

I beginning to see the pattern with you, you have ADD, and I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on you. You should seek help. :angel:
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,10:57 am
Here's one with a video

< http://www.cnbc.com/2015...ry.html >

I'm sure there'll be a coloring book soon for you.

:peaceout:
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,11:23 am

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 29 2015,10:57 am)
QUOTE
Here's one with a video

< http://www.cnbc.com/2015...ry.html >

I'm sure there'll be a coloring book soon for you.

:peaceout:

I like the first part of the video where Trump chides Super PACs

As for Rubio's accusations nay defamation, Charge Clinton with a crime!

I did miss that part when I watched the debate, but he's a minor player, way too many candidates on stage to pin down issues, to waste airtime on attacks shows stupidity.

Rubio can't manage his personal finances do we want to put him in charge of the country's finances!
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,12:27 pm
^^ defamation??

She admitted to it last week :blush:

Now remember what I told you about paying attention.

I'm a kinder and gentler SB :D
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,2:42 pm
Was this the seventh or eighth Benghazi investigation/hearing there comes a point when you bring charges or you admit nothing was done wrong, how much time and money are the Republicans going to waste?

Kevin McCarthy tied the whole Benghazi issue to Hillary's poll numbers, this a politically motivated witch hunt at taxpayer expense! There comes a point when the whole thing boomerangs, we're past that point, the Republican's just elected Clinton President.
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 29 2015,2:44 pm

(Expatriate @ Oct. 29 2015,11:23 am)
QUOTE
way too many candidates on stage to pin down issues, to waste airtime on attacks shows stupidity.

I think it will likely fall off on the numbers soon, although it's tough to tell at this point who will leave.  The minor players on the big stage seemed to carry the best responses last night, whereas the two top contenders didn't do as well as I expected.

Just your comments and attacks on Rubio tells me he did well.

As far as the stupidity attacks...I agree.  I have to wonder why the moderators did it then?
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,2:48 pm
The moderators asked tough questions, but these folks are interviewing for a critical job. You can't exactly call Crammer a lefty, but he did ask some good questions to which he got poor responses.
Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 29 2015,3:05 pm
Rubio's in deep with the prisons-for-profit crowd. He should be dismissed from consideration on that point alone.

I say elect Trump and be done with it. It's time to sit back and watch the world burn. :popcorn:
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,3:08 pm
^^ ummmm, you're not paying attension again

Jim Cramer is a dem, through and through. He even worked for Jerry Brown.

< https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer >

Now Larry Kudlow is a conservative


C'mon now, pay attension, I know you can :p

Oops, that's for Exlax :thumbsup:
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 29 2015,3:19 pm
Pffttt! Even the < Clinton News Network > picked CNBC and the mods as the losers of the debate along with Bush.
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 29 2015,3:25 pm
When I paid to watch the idiot box I'd catch his show Mad Money he was always slamming Obama so I just took him as a rightwinger.

On the Benghazi investigation, it was too narrowly focused on Clinton when it should have been focused on our foreign policy. We're far to quick to take out stable governments only to see them replaced by chaos and refugees..
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 29 2015,3:53 pm
In other news Paul Ryan was elected speaker today

yippee :sarcasm:

Yahoo :sarcasm:

There's a short clip of Pelosi handing him the gavel, I know I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler SB but if he'd taken the gavel and beat her senseless, well, I'd felt better :thumbsup:
Posted by stardust14 on Oct. 29 2015,9:11 pm
Got home from work, ate supper, watched the World Series. GOP debate never crossed my mind. Something subconscious.

GOP debate viewers---life's short, not to be wasted. But whatever makes your copter cap spin.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 30 2015,4:42 am
^^Same can be said for baseball.
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 30 2015,5:05 am
Keep your friends close your enemies closer, the platform these politicians plan to implement will have a direct bearing on OUR future.
Baseball just hasn't been the same since Mr. Ed retired...  


       
       
       
       
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 30 2015,3:23 pm
Gee, who couldn't see this one coming.  And before some find the need to spew, think first.

QUOTE
< RNC suspends 'partnership' with NBC >

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Reince Priebus — responding to presidential candidate frustrations following Wednesday's CNBC debate — announces that the party is 'suspending the partnership' with NBC News for an upcoming February debate.

Priebus delivered the news -- the latest fallout from a controversial CNBC debate on Wednesday -- in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack. He noted that CNBC is one of their media properties, even if they do not exercise full editorial control over the network.

Complaining that the CNBC debate was "conducted in bad faith," Priebus said they need to ensure there is not a repeat performance and will suspend the partnership for a planned debate at the University of Houston on Feb. 26, 2016.

"The RNC's sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America's future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns," Priebus said in the letter, while insisting they would still have a debate on Feb. 26.

NBC News, in a statement, called the move a "disappointing development" but said the network would "work in good faith to resolve this matter with the Republican Party."
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2015,4:55 am
Yes, I'm sure you'd like to see a bunch of Namby Pamby questions asked to polish the image of your chosen politician.

I like the fact that theses guys were question on their proposed policy, asked about the math, and just how their proposed plan would work! Or what these candidates for President would do about real problems that exist for the American people today!
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 31 2015,6:24 am
^^your answers in the debate thread proved you didn't even watch the debate. :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2015,6:48 am

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 31 2015,6:24 am)
QUOTE
^^your answers in the debate thread proved you didn't even watch the debate. :dunce:

ON the contrary Dumbo, I posted the entire 3rd GOP debate to the forum so everyone could watch it, just because I missed some stupid nonsensical comment that had NOTHING to do with OUR country's future doesn't mean I didn't take the time to at least listen.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 31 2015,7:18 am
^^you can post anything you like, doesn't mean you watched it. I believe you to be a liar, just as most socialists are.

I'm curious as to what will come of this meeting

< http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/gop-campaigns-rnc-debates-215371 >
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2015,7:37 am
yeah right, let these candidates write their own question and answers for the Nov 10 debate. :sarcasm:  

So when is the field going to be narrowed? Republicans are running too many candidates...
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 31 2015,7:58 am
^^ oh I agree with you about the size of the field especially after some of the performances of this last debate (biaised mods be damned) how about a buckeye and a shrub, can we agree on that? :cool:
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2015,8:40 am

(Self-Banished @ Oct. 31 2015,7:58 am)
QUOTE
^^ oh I agree with you about the size of the field especially after some of the performances of this last debate (biaised mods be damned) how about a buckeye and a shrub, can we agree on that? :cool:

It’s difficult to be fair because of the large field and the continued waste of time on attacks rather than issues, although the 3rd debate was better,
and for me all these candidates from my viewpoint are taking US in the wrong direction.. So these are your guys, it’d be your decision, but here’s my 2 ¢...

Paul, Chirstie, Huckabee, Kasich gone, Bush is still the traditional Republican odds on favorite, I don’t know why, his performance was weak, but you’ll never get rid of him, Fiorina, borderline, Cruz borderline, Rubio, I like the fact he defended Social Security and Medicare, he should have stayed away from the partisan attacks, it does scare me that his personal finances are in such a mess, particularly after he made millions on book sales, doesn’t say much for a conservative money management.
Trump is Trump, unpredictable, too high key, Carson needs to pick up his enthusiasm level, he’s too low key...
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 31 2015,9:29 am
Screw traditional, Bush IS weak. The ones gone? I hate to do it to Paul but yeah, him and the others you mentioned need to be gone.

True about Carson but it'd be nice to have a POTUS with an analytical mind. Fiorina is my fav but I don't think she'll make it. Cruz? What a wonderful AG he'd make or even SCOTUS (fun to scare the sheep) you're right, Trump is Trump and he scares the hell out of me with talks of raising tariffs but I'm starting to warm to him :D
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 01 2015,4:30 am
Marco Rubio - a closer look..

My Earlier statement said I liked what Rubio had to say on Social Security & Medicare, I'll have to recant my statement after examining his plan.

On social security he plans to raise the age and cut benefits for those he considers upper income - so under his plan money I paid in I don't get back because I'd be considered upper income, I'm punished because I have a pension, invested wisely, lived a good but not extravagant lifestyle.

On Medicare it gets worse, he moves Medicare to a premium support system, which would give seniors a fixed amount with which to purchase health insurance, good luck with that!

On taxes, he's got a somewhat progressive scale, most of you who read/participate in this forum would fall in the bottom scale, 0-75,000 @ 15% tax-rate, reading  a little closer he creates a $2,000 (individual) / $4,000 (married filing jointly) refundable personal tax credit in place of the standard deduction... what that amounts to for those of you who aren't tax savvy, the elimination of the standard deduction with 15% tax rate would amount to a sizable tax increase on those who can least afford it.

It's this type plan that cripples the purchasing power of the Middle Class and kills the economy, it's why Republican policy has continually led US to Depressions and Recessions!  

And I wondered why this guys personal finances were a mess, he's the run of the mill Republican...

< https://marcorubio.com/issues/ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 01 2015,8:10 am
But I'd prefer someone who's actually run a business, an expert negotiator, someone with moxy, not someone who just gathers votes by giving away free stuff.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 02 2015,5:48 am
What I'd like to see is these folks put their plans in black & white on their websites, I want to know about their Tax/Debt, Social Security, Medicare, Domestic & Foreign policy programs.

I'll give Rubio credit he's the only Republican with the balls to tell you, with the rest you get bits and pieces of noncommittal sound bites. Both Clinton and Sanders have committed to black & white positions!

When you have a long-term Republican Economist like Bernanke abandon the Party, faulting them for failed economic and fiscal policy you have to admit something is wrong!

What every good businessman knows you must have customers, if these customers are over burdened by taxation, worries about Social Security cuts, having to pay for Medicare again out of pocket, job security, labor laws, pensions under attack while large tax cuts are made for corporations and billionaires, all in the name of deregulation the economy will come crashing down!

What we see from the Republican Party is Depression era Policy implemented for the foolish because it was rubber stamped by some bought and paid for Rightwing Propagandist.

Dump that Socialist phobia, Bernie's a democratic socialist. Chances are, it's not what you think.

"There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations, who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power."

– Theodore Roosevelt-Republican President-democratic socialist
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 02 2015,6:30 am
If candidates had put their proposed policies and what they were going to do,Buster would have never been elected.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 02 2015,6:40 am
George W. Bush and the failed economic policy of the Republican platform elected Obama.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 02 2015,8:09 am
^^ media and guilt elected Buster. :(
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 03 2015,6:04 pm
..
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 03 2015,6:51 pm
^^a simpleton sign posted by... :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 04 2015,5:50 am
Dumbo quote:
QUOTE
^^a simpleton sign posted by... :dunce:


When 3T-Paul Harvey-Minnow posted here he called you the stupidest poster on the Forum!
Time after time you continue to prove Billy Bong Boy correct in his opinion of you.

Your posts show a lack of imagination, no real wit, intelligence only matched by a third grader.
You can't defend a position, debate a political platform, you really don't have an original thought in that head of yours.
Trolling seems to be your only forte...
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 04 2015,8:00 am
^^ so I'm guessing  no BJ from your boyfriend last night. :(
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 04 2015,8:02 am
Once again you prove 3T correct...
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 04 2015,8:06 am
^^ once again you have no imagination😚
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 04 2015,9:22 am
What do you expect from expat?
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 06 2015,6:02 am
..
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 06 2015,9:03 am
Ohhh, cool.  Dems new version of the wheelchair scare.  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 11 2015,7:30 am
The forth Republican Debate, let me break it down for you!
The American "People have to work harder for less".
The Republican justification for corporate, wealthy tax-cuts "it makes US more competitive", "jobs will stay in this country" bologna, it's 50 ¢ per hr. slave wage, no tax cut can compete with that you stupid loonytunes... these people haven't got a clue...

listen closely goofy Dog they're going after Medicare, Social Security and every thing else, deregulate-deregulate-deregulate-eliminate-eliminate-eliminate, "lets get rid of Government all together" the Blue sky economy will just take off, yeah right, how stupid do you think the Americans are!

these are direct quotes from these tunes... 
 
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 11 2015,7:42 am
^^ if you'd been listening(guess it's hard with sh!t for grey matter) a lot of last night was spent on America's potential and how it's being squandered as we watch. Working harder for less? Obviously your referring to the $15 per hour minimum that's bantied about, what a crock, 31K a year to flip burgers?  :dunce:  :dunce: and once again :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 11 2015,1:17 pm
Paul shines on foreign policy, interrupted by a rude bitch who Trump promptly puts in her place!  

Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 11 2015,2:54 pm
expat quote
QUOTE
Paul shines on foreign policy, interrupted by a rude bitch who Trump promptly puts in her place!  


Just an opportunity for The Donald to say, "look at me"

I'm going to be nice to expat today. :D
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 11 2015,3:37 pm
she not only broke Reagan's 11th commandment, she attacked Reagan himself,  sacrilegious behavior on her part...
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 11 2015,4:54 pm
^^if stroke lady were behind Bullsh!i she'd be ripping him up one side and down the other.

The only good thing about Bullsh!t is he's pushed stroke lady far, far to the left. It'll be a long journey back for her.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 11 2015,8:57 pm
Just walk'n the Dog :D and watch'n that elephant jump the fence!
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 10 2015,6:36 am
:frusty:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 10 2015,7:32 am
^^
And also this one does too,
But she was turned down buy the Marines :rofl:
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 11 2015,12:29 pm

(Expatriate @ Dec. 10 2015,6:36 am)
QUOTE
:frusty:

If that frustrates you, Obama must make you go ape$h!t then
Posted by alcitizens on Dec. 11 2015,10:32 pm
Love is, all around you.. Love is knocking, outside the door.. Waiting for you, is this love made just for two? Keep'in on, and Again I know..

Repeat..  :D  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 13 2015,6:41 am
Most of you are too young to remember the recruiting posters of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, it was an attempt to drive a patriotic furor among our young to what was perceived a threat to US.

The Muslim insurrection needs no such posters, the young men who may be borderline on their a decision as to the merits of this uprising need only turn on a television to be swayed by the recruiters of this war, Trump, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Carson, each and every Republican candidate are the Muslim insurrection recruiters, their calls for the blood of our sons and the treasure of our nation to be sacrificed in what should be an internal Muslim handled affair drives the patriotic furor among young Muslims...

The Republican calls for boots on the ground should be met with a boot in the collective Republican Party's ass, these people just do not learn...

Of our returning Afghanistan/Iraq veterans we have over 500,000 claiming PTSD, when the VA confirms these young men are indeed suffering from PTSD they are awarded a pension and medical care for life.
These young people didn't see the combat of WW2, Korea, or Vietnam but it's pretty obvious by their suicide rate they've seen more than enough.

It's time to relegate our Military to it's intended purpose our Nation's defense, it shouldn't be a cash cow for the Military Industrial Complex or a Wall Street enforcer..

Vote Sanders for a return to sanity for US... 

   
< http://www.veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html >
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 13 2015,6:51 am
^^ Oh I agree, we shouldn't waste our blood and treasure fighting other countries wars and Batsh!t Sanders is right there.

But that's one issue, about the only issue I agree with.

Otherwise he's, well, batsh!t crazy.

I think it's very telling that you omit stroke lady :blush:

You must not want to backpedal too far when she wins the nomination. :laugh:
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 13 2015,11:29 pm

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2015,12:29 pm)
QUOTE

If that frustrates you, Obama must make you go ape$h!t then

Reread the picture, Democrats like Obama don't want to send us into "another decade long ground war."

SB:
QUOTE
But that's one issue, about the only issue I agree with.

Otherwise he's, well, batsh!t crazy.

I think it's very telling that you omit stroke lady

I'm not sure if you actually think about the issues.  Reading your posts nearly all of them are just insults without any substance.  For example, I haven't seen you use their name a single time, it's always "batcrap crazy" or "stroke lady".  

Why can't you actually talk about the economy or the budget?   :dunno:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 14 2015,12:42 am
Here's a little economic story from 3 years ago

< https://www.nrcc.org/2012...economy >

Don't you just love the change?

I call him Batsh!t crazy because, well, he's batsh!t crazy. He has no clue about capitalism, which is how this country is supposed to work.neither does he have a viable plan to pay for all his planned give always.

Stroke lady? Kinda obvious with that "little fall" she took a few years ago then disappeared for awhile. All you had to do was watch her walk just after. Not to mention that she's incompetent.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 15 2015,3:46 pm

(irisheyes @ Dec. 13 2015,11:29 pm)
QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 11 2015,12:29 pm)
QUOTE

If that frustrates you, Obama must make you go ape$h!t then

Reread the picture, Democrats like Obama don't want to send us into "another decade long ground war."

And my point is that Obama already has.  He recently sent 3500 soldiers and an unknown amount of support personnel back to Iraq because of his failed exit strategy.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 15 2015,5:01 pm

(irisheyes @ Dec. 13 2015,11:29 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure if you actually think about the issues.  Reading your posts nearly all of them are just insults without any substance.

No. Really?
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 15 2015,6:15 pm

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 15 2015,5:01 pm)
QUOTE

(irisheyes @ Dec. 13 2015,11:29 pm)
QUOTE
I'm not sure if you actually think about the issues.  Reading your posts nearly all of them are just insults without any substance.

No. Really?

There's just no joy in your life is there?

You need some cheering up, maybe a puppy. :)
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 16 2015,10:32 am
I'd like to walk the Dog, figured he'd be around to gloat over the Planned Parenthood shootings, or Bowe Bergdahl's court-martial...maybe he's in the Iowa dog-pound till he sobers-up...  
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 18 2015,1:05 pm
Posted by stardust14 on Dec. 20 2015,11:07 pm
 
 
 
 
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 21 2015,5:42 am
< Cruz’s Constant References to Jesus Drive Millions to Atheism >
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 21 2015,6:27 am
^^The New Yorker? Are you serious?
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 21 2015,6:41 am
Porn troll quote:
QUOTE
^^The New Yorker? Are you serious?


Someone who says they are Christian calling for carpet-bombing human-beings as a solution to middle east problems, has no business talking God...with the exception of Rand Paul the Republican Candidates are blood thirsty idgits...

Borowitz, is writer, comedian, satirist...unfortunately his satire often reflects reality...the tards you worship are easy material...
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 21 2015,7:03 am
^^ yeah, comedian. :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 21 2015,7:07 am
:dunce:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 21 2015,8:20 am
^^ works for me Mr Love Canal.

On another note, you're Star Twink's parrot now? :dunce:
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 22 2015,11:58 am
:D
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 24 2015,5:40 am
^.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 24 2015,6:07 am
Tell me again how Republicans are OUR Representatives.. Once again the American consumer and producer fall victim to trade deals...

< https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h333 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 24 2015,6:14 am
Hmmm, 66 Dems voted for it, must be vegans :D
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 24 2015,6:25 am
Our Minnesota Representatives Votes, 10 Republicans voted nay, must be RINOs... :D
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 24 2015,6:36 am
^^I eat a lot of fish and most of it comes from out of the country. A lot of it coming from Vietnam :D
Posted by grassman on Dec. 24 2015,8:20 am
So you are what started the Asian carp infestation!  :O  If you are going to eat fish from Vietnam's murky water, might as well just put a seine net in Minnesota River. :laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 24 2015,9:11 am
^^ or the Mississippi, no, not a hillbilly, don't eat carp.

There are worse things, it's only a matter of time before all MN lakes are infested with zebra mussels.
Posted by stardust14 on Dec. 26 2015,4:59 pm
Republicans---no need to know where food was grown, what poisons are attached to that food, if slave labor was used in producing that food. And no need to study the health consequences of digesting less & less nutritious products.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 01 2016,7:58 am

(stardust14 @ Dec. 26 2015,4:59 pm)
QUOTE
Republicans---no need to know where food was grown, what poisons are attached to that food, if slave labor was used in producing that food. And no need to study the health consequences of digesting less & less nutritious products.

I highly doubt you have a clue as to what it takes to produce food except maybe from what you do searches for online.
Posted by stardust14 on Jan. 01 2016,11:10 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 01 2016,7:58 am)
QUOTE
I highly doubt you have a clue as to what it takes to produce food except maybe from what you do searches for online.

Another presumption that could not be more wrong.

Try again.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 02 2016,5:05 am
^^doubtful

And prefer not to waste my time.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 07 2016,1:26 pm
This was a vote to pass H.R. 3762 in the Senate and House...

Republicans are attempting to use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and pause federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Budget reconciliation is the one chance each year that the majority party gets to bypass the Senate filibuster to get a bill to the President’s desk without needing a single vote from the minority party...this is the 56th attempt these tards have made it's time to fire the Republican Party they don't Represent US..



< https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s329 >

< https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h568 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 07 2016,1:53 pm
Why does Planned Parenthood need money for? They can just sell more parts.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 08 2016,7:00 am
^Lets use dollars and cents or sense, whichever you prefer..
For me it makes sense to prevent an unwanted pregnancy by giving these folks contraceptives.
The alternative is financing an expensive child birth, financing that child's education and well-being to the age of ??, he/she is already at a disadvantage so it's more than likely forever, prison or some other society problem.

Not that birth control is the only service these folks provide, but if they're doing it cheaper/conveniently than it would cost US for them to use a doctor/clinic setting we have to look at these tax dollars spent as a savings, a minuscule investment for a much larger savings..

Sometimes you have to spend money to save money, it's just the cost of doing business...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 08 2016,7:58 am
^^and they can sell more parts
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 08 2016,9:16 am
^
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 12 2016,6:50 am
>
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 12 2016,7:15 am
:rofl:  :rofl:
So true
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 12 2016,9:43 am
If you want a good laugh at how whack Trump supporters are, check this out: < Guy Live-Tweets a Trump Rally >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 12 2016,2:34 pm

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 12 2016,9:43 am)
QUOTE
If you want a good laugh at how whack Trump supporters are, check this out: < Guy Live-Tweets a Trump Rally >

Wow and of course this is totally unbiased. :sarcasm:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 12 2016,4:15 pm
Pretty hard to cite bias, given the material...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 12 2016,4:20 pm
^^ these are his posts, you know for sure he'll truthful?
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 14 2016,6:07 am
DETAILS: Fox Business Network to Live Stream Thursday's GOP Debates...

< http://insider.foxnews.com/2016...uary-14 >
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 14 2016,10:24 am
Meanwhile, in Florida...


< View on YouTube >

You don't lean into a condenser mic. All that money, and he can't hire someone smart enough to bring a Shure SM57, and a compressor...
Posted by grassman on Jan. 14 2016,10:52 am
Could you imagine him with access to our military and technology?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 14 2016,11:36 am
Oh! What a terrible solecism! If front of 10k supporters? What terrible behavior. :sarcasm:

It probably was a union sound guy. :dunce:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 14 2016,12:45 pm
Nothing wrong with the mic beyond the incompetence of the jackass talking braying into it.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 14 2016,2:14 pm
^^ looked in a mirror lately? You're the only braying jackass I know of. :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 15 2016,6:19 am
So much hate mongering, so many lies and half truths all on one stage for your entertainment..

So we have republicans talking about saving the working class, blaming Obama for their plight,
yet they will not raise the minimum wage and they continue to vote to deregulate and legislate away
every gain workers have made in the last 100 years.
They speak of out of control national debt from one side of their collective mouth and tax cuts for
corporations and wealthy from the other side, this is the same failed policy that created this massive debt
along with their chicken-hawk war based foreign policy.
Their solution tax cuts for corporations and the rich, refuse to pay back social security, raise the retirement
age, privatize for for fat cat profit Social Security, a voucher system for Medicare, privatize Medicaid etc. etc. etc..  

The biggest lie, we were better off before Obama took office, if you believe that bull you have serious memory problems..

As to the last seven years of government, if we removed the word no from the American language the Republicans would be speechless!  These guys just don't learn they've never seen a boondoggle or quagmire they wouldn't jump at the chance to involve US...  

I don’t make jokes, I just observe the government and report the facts.. ~Will Rogers
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 15 2016,6:36 am
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 15 2016,9:19 am
Fox tards call Big Bird and Cookie Monster commies, you got to wonder how anyone in their right mind can call this a news channel...

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,10:34 am
^^Ah, media matters, or in their case the truth doesn't matter.

Big Bird is a business onto herself, making millions in profits every year so why do we fund this BS?
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 15 2016,11:44 am
GE is a business unto itself. Please explain why we fund them, with massive tax breaks. What did they pay in taxes last year? Oh yeah. ZERO.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,11:51 am
^^This I will agree with, these two look cute together.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 15 2016,1:01 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 15 2016,10:34 am)
QUOTE
^^Ah, media matters, or in their case the truth doesn't matter.

Big Bird is a business onto herself, making millions in profits every year so why do we fund this BS?

PBS is peanuts and if you had watched the clip you’d have known they’re on HBO, idgit...

Riddle me this Jew Boy, why are we giving Israel $10,000,000.00 a DAY? They have Free College for their citizens, they have full healthcare for every Israelis...  

In 2007 the Bush Administration established a 10-year, $30 billion Israeli military aid package for fiscal years 2009 through 2018.

< http://journalistsresource.org/studies...-report >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 15 2016,1:33 pm
^^ because the awfully nice people and you're not.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 16 2016,12:32 pm
Nice people or not, those are our tax dollars, robbing our taxpayer to make life better for Israel makes little sense...

If they can afford a Nationalized Healthcare System where every Israelis has the right to healthcare, and they can afford to send all their qualified students to college as a right, yet those same privileges are denied our citizens..I'd call that a misuse of American tax dollars..      

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,7:00 am
Here dumbass, here's waste.

< http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-b...dollars >

Not to mention money wasted on gov worker unions in this country.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 17 2016,7:25 am
^You're a real dead-end street- the majority of the money in your list is being spent by the DOD on research I'd consider relative to National Defense, ( not empire building ) as for the remainder, yes some of it seems nonsensical, but those tax dollar are being spent here in the United States!
The whole bill is around $100 million that's 10 DAYS worth of what we're sending Israel..idgit..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,10:42 am
^^ the point being it's wasted money :(

Here's an embarrassing one for both parties
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,11:54 am
Or if that's not your taste today

Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2013 Reported in $US millions, Obligations [8]
Country U.S. Total Economic and Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Economic Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions
Afghanistan 4,533.51 2,653.93 1,879.58
Israel 2,961.04 17.81 2,943.23
Egypt 1,566.24 330.60 1,235.60
Jordan 1,211.83 879.64 332.19
West Bank/Gaza 1,007.73
Ethiopia 686.53 685.19 1.34
South Sudan 618.74 598.79 19.96
Malawi 571.18 570.91 0.27
Uganda 541.93 538.30 3.62
South Africa 526.19 523.86 2.32
Nigeria 518.84 509.41 9.43
Russia 465.16 445.07 20.08
Iraq 444.81 382.70 62.11
Tanzania 430.66 427.82 2.84
Mexico 419.94 348.72 71.21
Congo (Kinshasa) 379.24 366.73 12.52
Haiti 378.77 377.04 1.73
Lebanon 376.41 286.03 90.38
Somalia 367.18 188.00 179.18
Zambia 310.80 310.26 0.54
Sudan (former)* 290.05 290.05
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 17 2016,11:57 am
Then there's this worthless endeavor

< http://cnsnews.com/news...-budget >

Shall I continue?
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 18 2016,5:37 am
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 18 2016,6:22 am
Two of our former posters pledge their love of Trump

< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2016...ortrays >

< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2016...amazing >


Proof conservatives should be medicated...  
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 18 2016,10:32 am
^^ probably proof that they should up the voltage in your treatments. Except for the comment you made on the vid this was the first posting you've made that actually made sense

Keep up the good work. :blush:
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 18 2016,1:28 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 15 2016,1:33 pm)
QUOTE
^^ because the awfully nice people and you're not.

If you were a Palestinian you might see things differently.  You'd see them barging into hospitals to kill patients, fire missiles at children on a beach, and openly violate more sanctions than any other country in the middle east with complete immunity.  And if you've read about the "accidental" attack on the USS Liberty, you'd know they're not much nicer to Americans if they think they can get away with it.

Israel should stand on their own or be chased out of the middle east.  It goes that way for any country, don't be the bully on the block and come to our Congress for more help, or pressure us to invade yet another country to make them feel safer.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 18 2016,3:39 pm
^^ if you were surrounded by countries that have sworn to your demise of people that launch mortars into your borders on a daily basis you might be a bit testy too.

Wow, just go away, pretty much cease to exist, how's that for compassion? :sarcasm:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 20 2016,7:10 am
^We were talking wasted tax dollars before you let your Jewish blood get the best of you..You’re an American now son, to quote one of your favorites W, “you’re either with US or against US”..
The journalist resource link I posted estimated we’ve pumped over 100 billion in military foreign aid into Israel, these folks aren’t some third world economy..our debt per capita is 58,255 / % GDP 103..
The Israel debt per capita is 12,070 / % GDP 33 , their economy is highest ranked in the Middle East and ahead of some Western European nations such as France, Austria and Belgium.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt >

As for why the Arabs and Jews hate each other, it’s more of this Religion crap, I could care less if you religious types want to kill each other off, hey, the sooner the better, but when you involve my Tax dollars or want to involve my Army in your nonsense, no way...
How many times and how much in tax dollars have we spent trying to broker a peace deal for Israel only to see them continue their settlement expansion into Palestine territory, piss off the Palestinians and crumble any peace deal?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 20 2016,10:36 am
The US's foreign aid is but a pitance of our budget, personally I'd like to see all aid end, we have better things to spend money on. But what gets me is the aid we send to China,it doesn't matter who's in office, we send money yet we borrow from them, wtf? Another is the Islamic countries like Afghanistan., go figure.

So let me get this straight, I'm a short, fat smelly, Jewish truck driver? Hmmm
Posted by Liberal on Jan. 20 2016,1:32 pm
I wasn't able to change the channel and was stuck listening to Sara Palin stumping for that moron Trump for about 10 mins and it actually made me feel bad for the Republican party.
Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 20 2016,2:40 pm
The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury.

China buys tons of US T-bills to strengthen the US Dollar so their own currency stays weak.. This allows them to export more product to countries around the world..

Countries around the world have vaults full of US T-bills.. The US Dollar is the safe haven currency..

The more they hold allows us to have lower interest rates..
Posted by grassman on Jan. 20 2016,3:53 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 20 2016,10:36 am)
QUOTE
So let me get this straight, I'm a short, fat smelly, Jewish truck driver? Hmmm

I knew it!!!!  :laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 20 2016,4:39 pm
^^I guess there are worse things in life :D
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 21 2016,8:03 am

(Liberal @ Jan. 20 2016,1:32 pm)
QUOTE
I wasn't able to change the channel and was stuck listening to Sara Palin stumping for that moron Trump for about 10 mins and it actually made me feel bad for the Republican party.

Don't know if you caught this part of Palin's bull, she's trying to fault Obama with her crazy son who's a product of her dysfunctional family values..
The Republican's have resisted spending any money on returning veterans, don't believe me check their votes! Obama launched new rules for Veterans in 2010 easing PTSD documentation requirements, prior to that you had to be raving crazy to get help. Republicans are pro-war anti-veteran..  

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 21 2016,8:04 am
'Murica
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 21 2016,8:47 am
QUOTE
The Republican's have resisted spending any money on returning veterans,

I'm not defending the Repbubs on this but just using at as an example.
The problem with blanket statements like these is you don't know what else was attached to the bill.
Both sides are play this stupid game and it's one major fault with our process.
A bill can start out as funding PTSD research, or whatever, but then end up with attachments that defund planned parenthood, throw extra money into a bird sanctuary in Antarctica, or not raise the debt ceiling.  So in the end its not that you are voting against PTSD funding but against all the added BS to the orginal bill.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,9:34 am
^^ both sides play this game every time as you say but when one side has the lame stream media on their side the "evilness" is magnafied to the sheep in this country.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 21 2016,9:55 am
GIL quote:
QUOTE
I'm not defending the Repbubs on this but just using at as an example.
The problem with blanket statements like these is you don't know what else was attached to the bill.
Both sides are play this stupid game and it's one major fault with our process.
A bill can start out as funding PTSD research, or whatever, but then end up with attachments that defund planned parenthood, throw extra money into a bird sanctuary in Antarctica, or not raise the debt ceiling.  So in the end its not that you are voting against PTSD funding but against all the added BS to the orginal bill.


Palin was mocking Obama for what is essentially disgraceful actions of her own party...  

The Republican controlled committee slashed more than $1.4 billion from the president’s requested budget for America’s Veterans.

We’re talking direct cuts to budget funding...nobody likes paying for things, but the reckless behavior of Republican Administrations involving US in needless
perpetual war has created expensive obligations.

Those of US who dared to say we were going into these situations on a false pretenses on this forum were labeled traitors. Several Republican Administrations
did everything but use the Sedation Act on anyone who questioned their “it’s about freedom and national defense malarkey.”  

 
< http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage...eterans >

< https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1982/summary >


etc..etc..etc..

We should let Corporate Oil and the Military Industrial Complex pay the bill to take care of our veterans..
But the Republican Party wants to cut the Taxes for those who profited on our tax-dollars and the blood of our veterans..
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 21 2016,10:09 am

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 21 2016,9:34 am)
QUOTE
^^ both sides play this game every time as you say but when one side has the lame stream media on their side the "evilness" is magnafied to the sheep in this country.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :dunce:

Yeah, but who pays the most attention to that crap?

As Jim Hanson pointed out numerous times, FOXNews has far more viewers than any other so-called "news" outlet.

I'd say there are more sheep in the right pen than in the left one.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,11:21 am
^^ all the left put together?? Doubtful. We're lead by the nose from the right and the left.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 21 2016,12:05 pm
Math isn't really your strong suit, is it Bluto?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,12:08 pm
< http://m.townhall.com/columni...ull >

< http://www.allenbwest.com/2015...I'm >

< http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-d...I'm >

< http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current...llegals >

< http://dailycaller.com/2015...-budget >

Expat can come up with his versions just as fast as I can, once again, we're just being lead around by our noses and folks like Expat are nothing more than braying jackasses. :deadhorse:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 21 2016,1:12 pm
Then there's this whacked family...
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 21 2016,1:38 pm
QUOTE
Expat can come up with his versions just as fast as I can, once again, we're just being lead around by our noses and folks like Expat are nothing more than braying jackasses
.

@ stupid.
I really don't have a problem with your physical stature or heritage...it's your stupidity I can't stand...

Just when I think you've shown US the depth of your stupidity you post some more tripe that shows we've barely scratched the surface of your idiotic stupidity...

I link the VA and the Congressional Record you link some blogs and bull that isn't even relative to the subject..idgit.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,2:53 pm
^^My stature and my heritage? Wow, you're just not paying attention, you actually believe everything the gov spews. You hate stupidity? You must have a tough time shaving without slitting your throat.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,4:12 pm

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 21 2016,1:12 pm)
QUOTE
Then there's this whacked family...

You mean these hillbillys?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2016,4:13 pm
I was including broadcast too. There are a lot of poor folks like expat that can't afford cable.

But look at that, hmmmm, I wonder what they're doing different?
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,4:20 am
QUOTE
I was including broadcast too. There are a lot of poor folks like expat that can't afford cable.

Cable is so passe, it's like the dial phone, but that's where you live in the past.
Anyone that has unlimited data internet access, a router and a smart TV can stream at their own leisure commercial free, I do have Netflix and Prime, but there are free services too..
A half way decent digital antenna living in Anoka would give you most of what you now pay for with the exception of Fox News, CNN, etc. but they're online if you want to let someone think for you..

As for my income, I never worked for scab wages with no benefits like you..I doubt it's an exaggeration to say I make more in retirement than you do working for scab wages..

SB you're on the forum all day, either waiting to load or unload, why don't you buy say four trailers pay the spotting fee and keep that truck on the road, make enough money that someday you won't be a tax burden on people like me who were smart enough to have a real job!
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,5:18 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 22 2016,6:17 am

(Expatriate @ Jan. 22 2016,4:20 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I was including broadcast too. There are a lot of poor folks like expat that can't afford cable.

Cable is so passe, it's like the dial phone, but that's where you live in the past.
Anyone that has unlimited data internet access, a router and a smart TV can stream at their own leisure commercial free, I do have Netflix and Prime, but there are free services too..
A half way decent digital antenna living in Anoka would give you most of what you now pay for with the exception of Fox News, CNN, etc. but they're online if you want to let someone think for you..

As for my income, I never worked for scab wages with no benefits like you..I doubt it's an exaggeration to say I make more in retirement than you do working for scab wages..

SB you're on the forum all day, either waiting to load or unload, why don't you buy say four trailers pay the spotting fee and keep that truck on the road, make enough money that someday you won't be a tax burden on people like me who were smart enough to have a real job!

Trying to stalk again? First off I don't live in Anoka. I do have other streaming services, Netflix with enough bandwidth to run very nicely(who wouldn't for $8 a month?) Hulu, etc.

As far as thinking for myself? Except for a couple of years thumping heads in bars I've always been an independent, born into it. You don't get too far letting other folks do your thinking.

And as far as my income? I net 6 figures a year and that's just with the trucking, then there's the other endeavors. :D add that to Mrs.SB's income with her Benny's and life's pretty damned good, both of us non union  :thumbsup:

We don't need a union, union's out-lived their usefulness 40+ years ago. The only holdout for unions is in the public sector and why is beyond comprehension, what are they going to negotiate, lunch room colors?

Living on a 50k pension in tract housing in a town with blinders on their leaders is not my idea of retirement but if it works for you, knock yourself out. :rockon:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,7:06 am
^^pfft...who do you think you're kidding...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 22 2016,7:36 am
^^
< http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/09/news/economy/truck-driver-shortage/ >

All you have to do is type in "driver jobs" the industry says they're 50k short, real numbers are more like 250k+

Average starting pays are running 75-85k with some companies offering immediate health care the day a driver starts. These are just large company jobs, it doesn't even delve into the specialize jobs like heavy haul, refrigerated,hazmat/explosive etc.
And if one's motivated and smart some single truck contractors can make over 300k a year and non of this is Union.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,7:58 am
There's a trucker shortage because when you figure the expense of being on the road 365, truck stop meals, showers, miscellaneous cost, stuck at some loading dock days on end waiting, when you average out the hours you're not making ends meet..a short haul trucker makes less, owner operator has the costs of the tractor/trailer payment, license, insurance, fuel, maintenance cost etc. all coming off his gross.. If you want to give up any life and stay on the road 365/24 as a team driver you might break-even...They can offer all they want most drivers are paid by the mile, you get one of those loads with 14 stops tell me about that big pay..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 22 2016,8:48 am
^^ ...and you've been driving truck how long??

Oops! I forgot you see the long haulers at the rest area. :D
But I heard your mouth was always too full to ask questions. :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,9:04 am
actually I do have a CDL, when I renewed this fall I had to produce my original birth certificate..that should add to the trucker shortage..

Had a relative who ran a trucking outfit for about 30 years, still have a cousin married to a guy down in Iowa running another trucking outfit. maybe being a dispatcher/owner/mechanic and finding dummies to drive cheap equals making a living..
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 22 2016,9:15 am
Wow...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 22 2016,10:30 am

(Expatriate @ Jan. 22 2016,9:04 am)
QUOTE
actually I do have a CDL, when I renewed this fall I had to produce my original birth certificate..that should add to the trucker shortage..

Had a relative who ran a trucking outfit for about 30 years, still have a cousin married to a guy down in Iowa running another trucking outfit. maybe being a dispatcher/owner/mechanic and finding dummies to drive cheap equals making a living..

Yep, when you renew your cdl now you have to produce a BC or a passport with photo and it is contributing to the shortage.

Cousins that marry? That explains a lot with you. There are all sorts of companies out there that take advantage of dipsh!ts like you, one just needs to be smart enough to stay away from operations that still think drivers are "a dime a dozen".

I love the part-timers that go out and buy a chain drive wallet and the high crown truckers hat to make a hundred mile or so run once or twice a year. :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 22 2016,10:34 am

(Botto 82 @ Jan. 22 2016,9:15 am)
QUOTE
Wow...

:blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,2:34 pm
..
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 22 2016,2:35 pm
..
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 23 2016,2:37 pm

< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 23 2016,3:30 pm

(Expatriate @ Jan. 22 2016,9:04 am)
QUOTE
actually I do have a CDL, when I renewed this fall I had to produce my original birth certificate..that should add to the trucker shortage..

Had a relative who ran a trucking outfit for about 30 years, still have a cousin married to a guy down in Iowa running another trucking outfit. maybe being a dispatcher/owner/mechanic and finding dummies to drive cheap equals making a living..

I FOUND THE TRUCK YOU DROVE! :rofl:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 24 2016,1:12 am
"You can't get angry at facts. They're just facts..." - Rush Limbaugh
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 24 2016,6:47 am
^^yes, you posted it, brain damage :rofl:  :dunce:  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 24 2016,6:50 am
:frusty:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 24 2016,6:57 am
 :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 24 2016,7:09 am
^Stupid, stupider, stupidest take your pick grammar wiz...

You've once again proven the Republican party is pathetically based on the collective wisdom of individual ignorance..
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 24 2016,8:07 am
^^ and if you'd pay attension you'd realize I'm not a party line guy, I am though one of the few in this world that think for themselves.

Do you get this sh!t from a union manual?  :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 25 2016,6:05 am
yeah sure, who do think you're fooling, you tea bagging tard...
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 25 2016,6:34 am
Watch Tina Fey show why Sarah Palin should always stay on her meds below:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 25 2016,6:57 am
^^ another reason SNL does'nt get the ratings it once did.

Are you familiar with hypoxia? Your posts suggest maybe you should talk to your doctor.
Posted by Glad I Left on Jan. 25 2016,8:35 am

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 25 2016,6:57 am)
QUOTE
Are you familiar with hypoxia? Your posts suggest maybe you should talk to your doctor.

That's what Lib calls Jim Hanson...
Speaking of Jim.. I haven't seen him post in years... Anyone know what's up with that?
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 25 2016,8:56 am
^^ :rofl:
I miss Jim too.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 25 2016,9:23 am

(Expatriate @ Jan. 25 2016,6:34 am)
QUOTE
Watch Tina Fey show why Sarah Palin should always stay on her meds below:


Phaack, the original speech was even funnier and more incoherent.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 25 2016,10:39 am
^^ embarrassingly, I agree with you. :blush:
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 27 2016,12:12 pm
Megyn Kelly is too tough for Trump?  :rofl:

What would he ever do with Vladmir Putin.  :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 30 2016,7:21 am
:laugh:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 30 2016,3:28 pm
^^raised over 6 million in one night for veterans.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 31 2016,5:25 am
^:frusty:
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 31 2016,5:43 am
^^you need' the so hard on yourself :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 31 2016,5:53 am

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 31 2016,5:43 am)
QUOTE
^^you need' the so hard on yourself :blush:

^Moron...
The guy is a spoiled rich kid who avoided military service, he'd get more kids killed with his psycho machismo...
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 31 2016,5:58 am
^^So now you're jealous that he had more privilege growing up, maybe you should grow up.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 31 2016,6:09 am
^^
QUOTE
So now you're jealous that he had more privilege growing up, maybe you should grow up.

For this Draft Dodger to hide behind the fallacy that he represents Veterans is disgusting!
As a Vietnam Era Veteran I find the warmonger stance among Trump and the other top Republican contenders worrisome to say the least.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 31 2016,6:19 am
^^yes, I know, when did Batsh!t serve?
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 31 2016,7:06 am

(Glad I Left @ Jan. 25 2016,8:35 am)
QUOTE
Speaking of Jim.. I haven't seen him post in years... Anyone know what's up with that?

He's busy spending our tax dollars on an airport nobody uses...

< http://www.albertleatribune.com/2016...e-works >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 31 2016,7:12 am
^^i see you're not appreciative of the airport.
Get it shut down, make AL into even more of a po'dunk town :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 01 2016,6:41 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 01 2016,8:29 am
^^ I see you found a media that at your level :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 02 2016,7:30 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 02 2016,10:42 am
^^ it could be worse, could be socialism. :blush:
Posted by grassman on Feb. 02 2016,11:58 am
I never much cared for him, something just rubs me wrong about him.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 02 2016,3:05 pm
I'll leave this here for the maroons to ponder.  Enjoy.  :;):

QUOTE
You look at Ted Cruz, you look at Marco Rubio, you look at Dr. Ben Carson. You have two Hispanics and an African-American getting 60% of the caucus votes.  Over on the Democrat side, two bedraggled, worn out old white people were the choice.  And we sit here, we continue to have to listen to all this garbage that the Republican Party is where you find a lack of diversity and closed-minded bigotry. -Rush
Posted by stardust14 on Feb. 02 2016,3:57 pm
Tokens. Easy to offer cheap non-quality token diversity. Look at the crowds attending Republican candidate rallies. Older white middle class country clubbers. Honest conservatives will never change. An honest conservative is more likeable than those fake inclusive conservatives.

There's also Dick Black, who the Cruz campaign has appointed as the co-chair of its Virginia campaign. In addition to advocating for the total criminalization of homosexuality, Black is also a rape truther. Back when he was a Virginia state delegate, Black openly questioned the existence of marital rape, something one of his opponents hammered him on in a campaign ad.

Ted Cruz says “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth...I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”

Ted Cruz win in Iowa---That moment when both of you find each other repulsive but you do it for Jesus.

The politics of this aside, I want to highlight here something we might call Christian Privilege. Could you imagine, for example, a Jewish candidate for president saying that he or she was a Jew first and an American second? Now imagine the sheer outrage if a Muslim American of any prominence whatsoever declared that he or she was Muslim first and American second. People’s heads would explode.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 02 2016,5:07 pm

(stardust14 @ Feb. 02 2016,3:57 pm)
QUOTE
Ted Cruz says “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth...I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”

We do not need anyone who can casually throw out divisive labels like that sitting in the White House. That's not leadership.

Unless the racial and religious and economic tensions are part of some grand scheme. Then, by all means, flippin' carry on. 'Cause remember - God will forgive your plunge into madness. Unless you're gay. And so on. :crazy:
Posted by stardust14 on Feb. 02 2016,8:58 pm
We know Trump says things out of pure expedience. A purebred capitalist. His grand scheme is to become more wealthy. Cruz is a different case altogether. Expatriate mentioned this. More like an angel with blood dripping from fangs. He'so far right he flirts with falling off a flat earth. Imagine having a xenophobic homophobic misogynist apocalyptic president. Goldwater was their last attempt.

After decades of excruciating middle-minded leaders the country appears ready for different direction. Won't happen. Ringed-nose citizens tethered to their investments. It is encouraging, though, to witness the fracturing of both political Parties, a glimmer of  alternative ideas.

Just as George Wallace was, Cruz is real. No faking there. One reason why the fakes in Washington despise him.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 02 2016,9:58 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 02 2016,10:42 am)
QUOTE
^^ it could be worse, could be socialism. :blush:

You must REALLY hate this group of freaks:

QUOTE
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.


Those are some scary ass socialists there. It's a good thing Bernie Sander's democratic socialism is nothing like that.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2016,5:18 am
^^at the tip of a Roman spear? :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 03 2016,8:14 am
:dunce:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 03 2016,9:03 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 03 2016,5:18 am)
QUOTE
^^at the tip of a Roman spear? :blush:

What do you mean?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2016,10:28 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 03 2016,8:14 am)
QUOTE
:dunce:

Wow, dumb as a box of rocks.
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 03 2016,10:45 am

(stardust14 @ Feb. 02 2016,3:57 pm)
QUOTE
Look at the crowds attending Republican candidate rallies. Older white middle class country clubbers.

Who is the real racist bigot?   :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 03 2016,10:51 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 03 2016,10:28 am)
QUOTE
Wow, dumb as a box of rocks.

:p Where's that birther talk of yours now tard?
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 03 2016,11:07 am

(stardust14 @ Feb. 02 2016,3:57 pm)
QUOTE
The politics of this aside, I want to highlight here something we might call Christian Privilege. Could you imagine, for example, a Jewish candidate for president saying that he or she was a Jew first and an American second? Now imagine the sheer outrage if a Muslim American of any prominence whatsoever declared that he or she was Muslim first and American second. People’s heads would explode.

You sound like one of those people that gets freaked out by Christians who wear their belief on their sleeves.  

I thought about why that creeps some people out and I think I know why.  I think people tend to reflect on their own relationship with God when they witness someone else publicly displaying their beliefs and end up reflecting on their own faith coming to the conclusion that their own belief doesn't measure up based on their own standards.  They become embarrassed in themselves which eventually leads to anger.  This anger then manifests itself in hatred for the person that exposes this feeling.

Remember Keith Ellison?  I know some people were angry but it didn't last long.  The majority of people were not outraged when he was sworn in on the Koran.  Nice try though.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 03 2016,12:05 pm
CC
QUOTE
You sound like one of those people that gets freaked out by Christians who wear their belief on their sleeves.  

I thought about why that creeps some people out and I think I know why.  I think people tend to reflect on their own relationship with God when they witness someone else publicly displaying their beliefs and end up reflecting on their own faith coming to the conclusion that their own belief doesn't measure up based on their own standards.  They become embarrassed in themselves which eventually leads to anger.  This anger then manifests itself in hatred for the person that exposes this feeling.


Sorry CC, I know that comment wasn't directed at me, except for maybe the part about some people being creeped out by christians who wear their beliefs on their sleeves. I just want to say HA  :rofl:
and quote some wise words recently posted by another forum member:


QUOTE
Sadly, it is those who scream the loudest about what good Christians they are and are the first to quote scripture to support their beliefs and actions, that seem to have the weakest faith.  they feel so threatened by anyone not believing exactly what they believe because their faith is so tenuous that anything that may cause them to question even the tiniest facet would bring their whole house of cards down.  
I respect and enjoy being around Christians who live good lives, love everyone regardless, and are examples of Christs love.  You can tell they are Christians without them having to tell you every other second to prove how good of Christians they are.  They use quotes from the Bible to teach not judge.  They offer love and support to those who they believe have fallen from God, not ridicule and condemnation.  They acknowledge themselves as sinners and welcome people into the flock despite their sins rather than do all they can to drive wedges between themselves and those they consider to be worse sinners or believers of the wrong flavor of Christianity.
"Christians" like Breeze are easy to see and drive people away from the faith.  Christ like Christians are subtle and work their way into your heart and bring you closer to God even if you don't believe the same things.  They are the kindly Grandmother you long to be around.  Not the raging drunken Father who beats you for your own good to make you a better person.  
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 03 2016,1:39 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 03 2016,10:51 am)
QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 03 2016,10:28 am)
QUOTE
Wow, dumb as a box of rocks.

:p Where's that birther talk of yours now tard?

You seem to have taken it over nicely

Tard :rofl:
Posted by stardust14 on Feb. 03 2016,2:56 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 03 2016,11:07 am)
QUOTE
You sound like one of those people that gets freaked out by Christians who wear their belief on their sleeves.  

Only when those sleeves are rubbed in other's faces.

I know a number of people with various religious backgrounds. They're devout, focused on a personal relationship with their spiritual life. I've had great long learning conversations with people explaining their beliefs. None rubbed their sleeves in my face.

It's not religion that's bothersome. It's tactics taken by some in delivering The Message--paranoia, fear, handing out free guilt trips, therapy sessions as you began sliding into. I won't get into the legions of fake religious. Think I covered that previously.

Cruz is on a crusade. He MUST wear his religion on his sleeve in order to lead the masses to salvation. I never did like crusades. After countless lost lives in the past(and today) people should be left alone to decide upon a satisfying spiritual life.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 04 2016,7:08 am
Republican Party sends in Sarah Palin to defeat Trump.. LOL
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 07 2016,6:24 am
8th Republican Presidential Debate

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 07 2016,7:24 am
^^about as funny as the last dem debate.
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 11 2016,5:14 pm
:D
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 11 2016,5:36 pm
^^ You just figured that out? Wow, you really are slow on the upchuck.

No matter, I wasn't too fond of
Humpy Dumpy anyway  :D
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 11 2016,5:42 pm
^Sh!t, you were in love with that Carly bitch, the one that screwed HP...
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 11 2016,6:06 pm
Yes, I do like Carly. Shall we talk about how many companies have been hurt by unions? Perhaps maybe a union screwing it's members over so bad that they lost their jobs? You know, that town just east of AL.

Humpy Dumpy is Christie moron.

I'm curious though, what business have you run? :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 12 2016,6:53 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 12 2016,7:24 am
^^ in other words, whine for freebies. :dunce:  :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 14 2016,4:35 am
visual clarity poor, but audio is clear..

I really wish there was some kind of automated fact checker
for these debates..

Video removed as all Republican Debates are the same yammer spewing , ANYONE with half a brain should recognize that fact..

No policy issues are debated, it's all bickering and name calling and back stabbing...

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 14 2016,7:12 am
^^the same could be said about the dem debates too.

Specifically Batsh!t's numbers. :blush:
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 14 2016,10:32 am
The Republican Debate, summed up in less than a minute...


< View on YouTube >
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 14 2016,11:04 am
^^hehehe the Honeymooners, love that one.

Trump didn't control the crowd this debate..
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 15 2016,7:11 am
I didn't think Trump carried the crowd in the last debate, but he's still carrying the polls. If we don't see some of these candidates drop out by March 1st Trump may well be the Republican candidate.
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2016,7:35 am
^^Duh, ya think? :dunce:
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 15 2016,7:51 am
Are you supporting Trump?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2016,8:47 am
^^Did I say I was supporting Trump?
Hard night at the rest area last night?
Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 26 2016,6:29 am
(FULL) CNN GOP Republican Presidential Debate Feb 25,16: Very Fiery Debate..

dead link...
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2016,2:50 pm
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVN1PW1x1xU >
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 04 2016,3:45 pm
Jerry Springer ratings will be suffering. When does it become inhumane to allow this to go on.  :rofl:  :rofl:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 05 2016,12:14 pm

(stardust14 @ Mar. 04 2016,3:45 pm)
QUOTE
Jerry Springer ratings will be suffering. When does it become inhumane to allow this to go on.  :rofl:  :rofl:

:rofl:


Do people not actually watch these debates for deciding who to vote for??? I finally watched about half of that last one, and scrolled through the transcript for the rest of it and

WOW!!! Lol, Jerry Springer is right. Freakin embarrassing. It's not just their elementary school behavior but the things they said that's embarrassing.

Too funny, here's condensed Trump from that last debate.

"I want to keep foreigners out of America and bring jobs back to America."

XX Then why is your clothing line manufactured overseas? And why do you import people to America to work for you? XX

Trump: "Because it's cheaper and people from other countries are more talented."

_

"I'm gonna build the wall, I'm gonna build the wall. Mexico is going to pay for the wall."

Trump: "Countries like China are crushing us on trade".

"Why are the clothes for your clothing line made in China and Mexico?"

Trump: "Well, foreign countries have devalued their currency so much, it's impossible to manufacture clothing in this country."

Moderator: "Senator Rubio, you not only supported the failed immigration reform effort through the Gang of Eight, but you're still on record as favoring an eventual path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. And in addition..

... you favored in-state tuition for Florida illegal immigrants."

xx Rubio doesn't really respond to that. xx

Moderator: "Mr. Trump, your campaign website to this day argues that more visas for highly skilled workers would, quote, "decimate American workers". However, at the CNBC debate, you spoke enthusiastically in favor of these visas. So, which is it?"

TRUMP: I'm changing. I'm changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can't do it, we'll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have.

So, we do need highly skilled, and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They'll go to Harvard, they'll go to Stanford, they'll go to Wharton, as soon as they're finished they'll get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately, they're not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.


xxxxxxx We have to have talented people in this country, and the only way to do that is to import the talented people from other countries. xxxxxxx


"Why do you import workers for your Mar-a-Lago Club?"

Trump: "It's a few months, five months at the most. People don't want a short-term job. They don't want -- so, we will bring people in, and we will send the people out. All done legally, all done with the process that's... Approved by government in Palm Beach, or West Palm Beach. We bring people in, we bring them out. We want to hire as many Americans as we can, but they don't want part-time, very short part-time jobs."

RUBIO: ... Because when you bring them in this way, when you bring someone in on one of these visas they can't go work for anybody else. They either work for you or they have to go back home. You basically have them captive, so you don't have to worry about competing for higher wages with another hotel down the street. And, that's why you bring workers from abroad.

You argue that you're here to fight on behalf of the American worker, but when you have chances to help the American worker...

RUBIO: ... but when you have chances to help the American workers, you're making your clothes overseas and you're hiring your workers from overseas.


...

Moderator: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists' families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they've been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.

So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they're illegal.

...

TRUMP: And -- and -- and -- I'm a leader. I'm a leader. I've always been a leader. I've never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they're going to do it. That's what leadership is all about.

____

Wow.
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 05 2016,10:37 pm
Yes...wow. Trump's words in transcript show his repetition. Like those rap djs "scratching" vinyls.  It really comes off as psychotic. This could be out of a Stephen King novel. Stephen and other novelists have enough raw material here for a whole series.

PS > Beware of Trumpies wandering the alleys of AL repetitiously muttering slogans and collecting bricks for a wall in their backyard.

Another anecdote:

The most revealing and shocking poll finding, however is that "Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War." Yes, according to The New York Times, a Public Policy Polling South Carolina exit survey found that 1/5 of Trump's electoral supporters in South Carolina believe that slavery should not have been abolished.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 06 2016,5:16 am
^^ got a link to that?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2016,8:02 am

(stardust14 @ Mar. 05 2016,10:37 pm)
QUOTE
Another anecdote:

The most revealing and shocking poll finding, however is that "Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War." Yes, according to The New York Times, a Public Policy Polling South Carolina exit survey found that 1/5 of Trump's electoral supporters in South Carolina believe that slavery should not have been abolished.

Yeesh, scary. I had no idea that racism was that strong still.

This also from that article:

QUOTE
Similarly, YouGov data reveal that a third of Mr. Trump’s (and Mr. Cruz’s) backers believe that Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea, while roughly 10 percent of Mr. Rubio’s and Mr. Kasich’s supporters do. Mr. Trump’s coalition is also more likely to disagree with the desegregation of the military (which was ordered in 1948 by Harry Truman) than other candidates’ supporters are.


SB, it's called Google.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2016...ml?_r=0 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 06 2016,8:14 am
^^ No, if I make a reference to to point I paste a link.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 06 2016,8:20 am
See, like this

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ts.html >
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 06 2016,1:18 pm
Playing "Fetch the Link" or "Let's Trade Memes" may be for some, not I.

The NYT article was mentioned on France 24 debate on Friday. Debaters around the table were visibly shocked, nearly speechless.

In the past I've mentioned trends towards slavery here in this country and factual events overseas. CC and others challenged such remarks. South Carolina, the Secession State, appears to yet harvest a good number of wanna-be slave owners. Trump/Cruz country.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 06 2016,1:33 pm
^^Slaves? Are you serious or just plain retarded? :dunce:

Wow, that little world you live in is really full of drama :crazy:

It's nice to know you found a new queen for all that drama :laugh:

Or is it you that's the queen ???
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 06 2016,2:13 pm
As Rosalind suggested.... google it, bonehead. Political correctness has changed the name to "human trafficking". Pull the maggots from your brain.

Thousands in the US every year. And growing. What do you have hiding in that trailer of yours?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 06 2016,4:40 pm
^^ don't own a trailer, I own houses :D  human trafficking? You mean like the illegals the hire coyotes to bring them over here and then are exploited? Sounds like they go what they deserved.

Sure there is crime in this country, there's crime in every country.

You need to pay attention to how much froth you putting in a latte and drop the drama :dunce:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2016,2:00 am
Wow, you really don't have a clue about anything that is going on do you. It's astounding.

QUOTE
Super Bowl XLIX remains the most-watched television program in United States history, with 114.4 million viewers. What many of those viewers did not know was that law enforcement agencies in 17 states arrested nearly 600 people and rescued 68 victims of human trafficking during a sting in the two weeks leading up to Super Bowl XLIX. After the previous Super Bowl in New Jersey, the FBI announced that it had arrested 45 pimps and freed 25 children who had been prostituted. Many of the children had been reported as missing in New York and New Jersey and were being held by traffickers in New Jersey for the Super Bowl. As Super Bowl 50 approached, various San Francisco and Bay Area agencies worked diligently to create awareness and send a message that trafficking will not be tolerated.

While there are between 26 and 28 million slaves worldwide, the estimate that one-third of the detected victims are children makes trafficking even more devastating. And sex trafficking is only one form of human slavery, while labor trafficking can include domestic work, factory or construction work, and migrant farming.


< http://espn.go.com/espn...areness >


QUOTE
More than 3,500 sex trafficking cases were reported to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center last year alone.

Under federal law, anyone under 18 years of age induced into commercial sex is a victim of sex trafficking -- regardless of whether the trafficker uses force, fraud, or coercion.

Sacharay's exploiter eventually brought her and another teen to Atlanta, because he could command higher prices.

According to a 2014 study by the Urban Institute, some traffickers in Atlanta make more than $32,000 a week.


< http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/us/sex-trafficking/ >



QUOTE
The United States is widely regarded as a destination country for human trafficking. Federal reports estimate that 14,500 to 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States annually. This does not include the number of victims who are trafficked within the United States each year.


< https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/what-is >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,4:28 am
^^
And every year thousands die from auto accidents, cancer, other various diseases etc.etc.etc

Sh!t happens
What happens to each of us is not always fair

Life's tough Buttercup. :blush:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 07 2016,5:46 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,6:31 am
Really? Ross Perot? The guy who had a running mate that didn't know what day of the week it was? :dunce:
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2016,7:00 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2016,6:31 am)
QUOTE
Really? Ross Perot? The guy who had a running mate that didn't know what day of the week it was? :dunce:

No.... I think you are referring to Dick Cheney.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,7:14 am
^^ Nope, I'm referring to Admiral Stockdale.
Do you have a man-crush on Cheney?
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2016,7:17 am
I think you have a life sized Dick Cheney love doll! :rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,8:05 am
^^ you mean like yours?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2016,8:24 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2016,4:28 am)
QUOTE
^^
And every year thousands die from auto accidents, cancer, other various diseases etc.etc.etc

Sh!t happens
What happens to each of us is not always fair

Life's tough Buttercup. :blush:

I posted the human trafficking information to help inform you about it since you apparently were not aware of it. But your response to children and others being sold as sex slaves and forced laborers? Wow.
You're so Christ-like. Jesus would be proud.  :sarcasm:

But now I hope even more that Bernie becomes President. And now I hope that he and his people are incorrect on their estimates of taxes to pay for medical for all and college for most.

I hope your taxes go through the roof cuz, Sh!t happens
What happens to each of us is not always fair

Life's tough Buttercup. :blush:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,8:56 am
^^
1. I'm a Christan, never said I was a good Chirstan though.

2. Human Trafficing, I don't really give a sh!t about it.

3. If Batsh!t's elected all our taxes will go through the roof but people like me will adapt, and most likely prosper despite hair brained ideas like yours :finger:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2016,10:27 am
On the evolutionary scale you are less advanced than foot fungus. - And more offensive.

At least I have never seen you say that you "love Jesus". You're a christian-in-name-only, and that's obvious. The fact that you are so self-obsessed that you don't even attempt any kind of spiritual reflection? Disturbing, to say the least.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,12:12 pm
^^ this from an atheist :blush:
An atheist nutjob that's thinks 911 was an inside job.

And yes, I love Jesus.
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 07 2016,4:00 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2016,12:12 pm)
QUOTE
And yes, I love Jesus.

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Oh, Rosalind, your sides were busting the other day. Now...now this one did it for me... :rofl:  :rofl:

Lordy massey, let me recover.

The jerk couldn't care less about enslaved children...but he's in love with Jesus  :rofl:  :rofl:

Thanks for posting info on modern slavery. Porno troll, infatuated with Jesus, thinks (no, he can't think)...assumes slavery involves chains and cotton fields. He wishes.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,4:48 pm
^^Yep, judged by an atheist. I guess what can I expect. :D
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 07 2016,6:02 pm
Something is guiding the GOP into the abyss. All for the better in the end. Cast out the vermin,  snakes, and....money changers? No, not those demons. GOP = money changers.

Spiritual folks outside Christianity tend to treat Jesus and the prophets with more respect than many among the faithful who prostitute his teachings for self-interest. Can't imagine Jesus approving the last GOP debate or any other. But Cruz and others drag their perverted versions of religion on stage, opening themselves up for due criticism.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2016,6:30 pm
Spiritual folks outside of Christianity, what drives your spirit Twink?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 07 2016,8:05 pm
It's astounding isn't it Stardust?? Wow.

And SB, I'm not atheist, I've said that several times. From my first comments on religion:


Opinion Section. Topic: On Christ:

The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions were all started by man, from books that were all three written by man. Each one says theirs is the "only true" one. People MUST pick the one true religion to get to heaven, or they are damned. All three books do agree on some very important things. All three say God is all knowing, and all powerful. If that's true, I'm figuring that He knows what a mess it is here, and how much confusion all three of these "holy" books have caused. They all three mesh together quite well, and personally, I find that the whole thing with all three of these books seems like a really long and scary Twilight Zone episode.
God told Abraham that He would have an everlasting covenant with one of his descendants. Christians and muslims fight over this part. Christians say Abrahams son Isaac was who God meant, muslims say Ishmael is who God meant. That's where the christian and islam religions branch off from the jewish religion.
And actually, Jesus really isn't a descendant of Abraham anyway. Mary isn't a descendant of Abraham, her husband Joseph was, but...we're told Joseph isn't Jesus' daddy.
I do believe in God, and I try always to live by Jesus' teachings of love, peace, understanding, and not judge others. I'm not jewish, christian or muslim. I've decided, if God really is all knowing and all powerful, then He can send me a rule book himself, instead of one that men write. I honestly don't think God even cares if anyone believes in Him or not. He's all knowing, He understands how difficult it would be for some people to not believe without proof.
So I'll live trying to be a good and loving person, I think that's all that matters. If I'm wrong I go to hell forever, but that's not hurting anyone but me. Besides, if I am wrong, and one of these faiths is the "one and only true one", well, I'd rather be in hell than stuck with all the followers of any one of those three religions! I know not all of any one certain religion is nasty and hateful, but I've met enough of all three to know that ALOT of them are.

And then this:

I'll keep putting my faith in God, and not any book written by man, but thanks for the concern ------.
Just curious, and not that I think you are wrong or anything, but other people have told me about Mary being a descendant, but I haven't been able to find that info in the bible. I've only seen the lineage that leads to Joseph being a descendant. I'd really appreciate it if you'd point me in the right direction about the Mary lineage. Thanks.

And then this:

That is the problem then, BUT it is my problem. I will continue to live my life by the teachings of love, peace, understanding and not judging others. I don't care what anyone else believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone in any way. If I'm wrong, then God can judge me. Like I said, I don't believe any of the holy books 100%, and I don't want to flip a coin and fake belief. I'm just as stubborn as any jewish, christian or muslim person in what I believe, and nothing will change my mind. That's ok, I'm not hurting anyone. If you honestly care about other peoples salvation, then thank you, that is kind of you, but you can only do so much and try so hard, just leave the rest up to God.


And then:

-------, what if you have been misled? Jesus questioned authority. What do you think Jesus would have thought about the early churches? The crusades? Killing people who disagreed with religious doctrine? The church used to teach that the sun revolved around the earth, and put to death people who disagreed with them. That's just one of the many things they did that I am pretty sure Jesus would disagree with. What do you think Jesus would think about the big expensive fancy churches built in "his honor"?
I don't think Jesus would mind if people questioned things. He taught people to think outside the box all the time. Just because the book says it is true, doesn't mean it is. I honestly think christians owe it to Jesus and God, to think more for themselves, and question the book and dogma. I doubt anyone will be condemned for taking a look at it all a bit differently.


And:

I think you may have misinterpreted the song lyrics. He is saying that it shouldn't matter if one believes in God or Jesus or anything. We should be able to live together peacefully and make the world a better place, no matter what our belief. Fighting over whose religion is the right one is pretty much insane. Ozzy didn't say that last part...I did. You can believe whatever you want, I can believe whatever I want, we should be able to get along and try to fix other problems in the world. Leave other peoples' souls to God.
---------
And my belief and love for God is also one of my reasons for trying to be as decent to the environment as possible. I love and respect this world He created.
Posted by stardust14 on Mar. 07 2016,9:15 pm
When the fake religious fail to acknowledge religious possibility outside their invented version, when they violate their fake code of ethics...they're fakes. Like Trump and his band of roving thugs.

Anyone see the SNL sketch on Trump. Perfect!!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2016,4:40 am
Ah, so you two are religeous till it's inconvenient. I see :blush:
Posted by grassman on Mar. 08 2016,10:17 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 07 2016,8:05 am)
QUOTE
^^ you mean like yours?

:laugh: I had a feeling you saved that pic. :;):
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2016,12:37 pm
^^Terrible, isn't it? :rofl:
Posted by grassman on Mar. 08 2016,1:53 pm
I'll delete mine now that you have your own. :thumbsup:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2016,4:17 pm
^^You started it :p
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 08 2016,5:34 pm
It's a warm, windy day. Are you airing out that stink box of a cab as well?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2016,6:04 pm
^^ It doesn't stink in there but it was a wonderful day to drive down the road with the window down and my arm hanging out. :D

Oops! Gotta edit, driving down the road making $$ :)
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2016,6:04 am
..There's still a Republican sucker born every minute...
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2016,6:29 am
^^ the alternative, trusting stroke lady?
Give me the snake oil!
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 17 2016,7:08 am
Voting for the fascist isn't the answer, he's a spoiled rich kid with a short-fuse...
W.C. Fields Quote: "I never vote for anyone, I always vote against someone"
Republican policy has been disastrous for our Nation, the continued creation of poor folks will eventually take US all down.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2016,8:45 am
^^ oh, so that's the excuse you're using for the stroke lady vote. :rofl:
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 17 2016,9:44 am
Good interview from a couple of days ago.
"We don't have democracy in our political system"

Mickey Edwards:

What bothers me—kind of morphing off it—what bothers me is hearing my fellow Republicans talk about Donald Trump being bad for the party. Who cares about the party? He’s going to be bad for America. And the idea that some of our candidates, who have accurately talked about his bigotry and all that stuff, then say, "Oh, but if he gets the nomination, we’ll support him," that’s absurd.

....

AMY GOODMAN: If Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, would you vote for him?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Oh, no.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re a longtime Republican congressman.

MICKEY EDWARDS: Yeah, well, no. Would I vote for Donald Trump? Never. You know, I—

AMY GOODMAN: Who would you vote for?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, my choices at that point would be, you know, either to not vote at all or to vote for the Democratic candidate, if I thought not voting at all would increase the chances of Trump winning.

....

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk, finally, about where you see this country going right now.

MICKEY EDWARDS: I think we have a lot of problems. And the—look, the problems are not just politics. You know, we have systemic problems in politics. The fact that the parties are able to decide what bills will be considered, the parties are able to decide who can be on the general election ballot, the parties can decide who can vote in what election, that’s a problem. But it’s not the only problem.

We have an education system today that doesn’t teach the humanities, doesn’t teach art, literature, poetry, you know, science. We’re treating people to be cogs in an economic machine. You know, all of our colleges are becoming voc-tech schools, about how you make a living. But the way you make people citizens is with philosophy and literature and critical thinking. So that’s a problem.

The media—the media has been a majorly—complicit in the rise of Trump. Just like Moonves said, you know, from CBS: "Hey, we’re making money!" So, Donald Trump was given all this time on 60 Minutes. He was given all this time on Saturday Night Live. And they’re cheering, because it’s these great crowds, because "Who cares about America? Let’s make money." You know, and so it’s a big problem, Amy.

...

MICKEY EDWARDS: The Republican Party—so, my earlier book about reclaiming conservatism, the Republican Party used to be the party of small business, not corporate America. It used to be the business of Main Street, not Wall Street, you know, and that’s been lost. But, you know, let me caution you. The idea that the Republican Party is about to go out of business and break up—this is the party that controls almost all the state legislatures, both houses of Congress and most of the governorships. If either party is in danger of becoming not a national party, it’s the Democrats.

< http://www.democracynow.org/2016...ards_we >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2016,9:55 am
There are a lot of sour grapes. :blush:
Posted by grassman on Mar. 17 2016,11:24 am
You can't hide from me SB, you've been very naughty. Someone needs a spanking! Come to mamma!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 17 2016,1:42 pm
Why is it that liberal women are so god awful-butt ugly?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2016,11:26 am
Thought this might be enjoyed

< http://youtu.be/T3_5rvTKewU >

:D
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 18 2016,5:02 pm
How 'bout this?
< http://www.cnbc.com/2016...ry.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 21 2016,6:36 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 21 2016,6:49 am
The Dems are becoming terrified  :D
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 23 2016,7:38 am
:rofl:
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 23 2016,9:59 am
^^ Yes, clearly the democrat party is the way to go :D
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 24 2016,4:40 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 23 2016,9:59 am)
QUOTE
^^ Yes, clearly the democrat party is the way to go :D

:frusty: There are 46.7 million American people living in poverty. The vast majority of these people work, the problem is Corporate greed and low wage no benefit employers.

The Republican party supports this type of economy, with their deregulation and right to work low wages laws and Corporate welfare..

< https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 24 2016,5:16 am
^^ < https://www.mackinac.org/18005 >

< http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayers/ >

Then there are the real welfare queens

< http://dailysignal.com/2013...bsidies >

And there are many many more examples of these slime balls.

< http://www.heritage.org/researc...ployees >

By the way, nice pic,
Do you "get it?"
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 24 2016,6:49 am
^^:dunce:
Posted by grassman on Mar. 24 2016,6:57 am
I guess what that shows is private sector is lacking in pay and benefits. hmmmmm. :(
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 24 2016,8:15 am
^^Really? As so many like to accuse me, I'm just a lowly, stinky, short, Jewish truck driver :rofl: , I do just fine. :thumbsup:
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 25 2016,6:02 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2016,6:16 am
^^ Good morning dumbass
Here's your thought for the day. :D
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 25 2016,6:21 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 24 2016,8:15 am)
QUOTE
^^Really? As so many like to accuse me, I'm just a lowly, stinky, short, Jewish truck driver :rofl: , I do just fine. :thumbsup:

you forgot Scab...idgit..
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2016,6:29 am
^^ Thanks! $$$
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 26 2016,6:12 am
..
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 02 2016,5:58 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 02 2016,8:09 am
^^ I was actually going to watch all of the till I saw "Boobby" :rofl:
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 04 2016,6:37 am
Pffft..I was just trying to thank Donald Trump and you for showing US what the Republican Party is all about...
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 04 2016,6:40 am
^^ hmmm, your post came up as gibberish.
Actually, pretty normal for you.
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 13 2016,5:26 am
Take the time to listen to this young man, he's telling US the truth.
Posted by grassman on Apr. 13 2016,6:18 am
Conditioned is the perfect word. These CPACs for instance, all of these millions of dollars. whose pocket does that money end up in? ???
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 14 2016,6:07 am
:p
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 14 2016,6:13 am
^^Funny, I'd like to see them get rid of the jackasses. :oops:
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard