Seriously...the biggest problem with our political system is that it is controlled by corporate interests and the Supreme Court finds that limits on how much money corporations can spend on political advertising are unconstitutional? In which part of the Constitution are non-human entities granted rights?
One government for sale to highest corporate bidder.
What was the name of that movie with James Caan?
Quote from: Exterminator on January 22, 2010, 08:11:35 AM
In which part of the Constitution are non-human entities granted rights?
It amazes me how much we think alike. When I first heard of that decision yesterday, that was the first thing that crossed my mind. If anything, this will further muddy the waters come election time. Corporations already have a powerful voice in Washington via the various lobbyists. Now, it seems, their voice has become more powerful.
Unfortunately, we still have several years of this kind of crap from the SCOTUS due to Bush appointing the likes of Roberts and Alito to the court. >:(
Sometimes I think the idiots in the Supreme Court are retarded. . . I know we are supposed to hire the handicapped but putting them into positions of authority seems a bit risky doesn't it? :icon_evil: :mad:
What do you expect? There is a 5-4 conservative majority, courtesy of Bush.
5-4 was the vote; precisely down those lines
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 22, 2010, 04:54:39 PM
What do you expect? There is a 5-4 conservative majority, courtesy of Bush.
5-4 was the vote; precisely down those lines
Hank's probably doing the happy dance on the fantail of the USS Decadence!
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 22, 2010, 04:54:39 PM
What do you expect? There is a 5-4 conservative majority, courtesy of Bush.
5-4 was the vote; precisely down those lines
It's also a well known fact, as this ruling clearly shows, that the conservatives always favor the corporations over individuals. It was on clear display during the health care debate, and it's on clear display with this ruling.
Probably because they all think they're the next billionaire entrepreneur and don't want to lose a single dime to anyone else. Or, if they don't become rich, at least they won't have to give a dime to the gub'mint in taxes.
Most have an overinflated value of their own intelligence and talents.
The most brilliant people I have ever met are some of the most humble and giving.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 22, 2010, 06:09:49 PM
. . .
The most brilliant people I have ever met are some of the most humble and giving.
I have also found this to be very true! :yes:
okay, help me out here and explain to me, how exactly it is constitutional, to tell ANYONE (individuals or companies) that they cannot express their voice or spend their money to do so, simply because it is X number of days before and election?
The first admendment protects EVERYONE to the freedom of speech...and the Court simply stood behind it as the should have....
Companies are not people, ergo, are afforded no rights by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2010, 02:59:04 PM
Companies are not people, ergo, are afforded no rights by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
so that makes it okay for our government to stifle a company from spending it's money what THEY think is not fair...such as GM or Ford endorsing a candidate, but yet it is okay for the Media (MSNBC or FOX) to do the same thing?...
I think the law that was overturned was a bad law in the first place.....
Actually, I don't particularly like ANY corporations or unions as far as that goes, to tell us who or who we cannot voter for.........but I like it even less that our government is telling us what we can and cannot say! :rant:
So you really don't have any issues with the influence that corporations already have in Washington and why not give them more? Seriously? Wow...I have no words...
Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2010, 03:39:09 PM
So you really don't have any issues with the influence that corporations already have in Washington and why not give them more? Seriously? Wow...I have no words...
so your answer is for government to start telling the people HOW to spend their money?....and HOW and WHEN to speak?....What about the "Influences that the MEDIA" has in Washington?...is that next?.....Why don't they make laws to get rid of lobbyiests?......
You've taken a lot of really bad positions on this forum in the past but this one takes the cake. :no:
all I am saying is I do not trust the government to determine WHO gets the right to speak publicly and WHO should be silenced....and THAT was what was happening....before this ruling.
I DO think there should be a law that stipulates that ALL corparate money that is used for political purposes MUST be approved by the shareholders....
No, Henry, that is not what was happening. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on January 27, 2010, 04:36:54 PM
No, Henry, that is not what was happening. :rolleyes:
Well, what WAS happening was the Government said that Corporations does not have the right of free-speech to engage in public debate of political issues.....and NOW, they can....as they SHOULD be.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
All I am saying is.....Freedom of speech has no restrictions on WHO or WHAT it applies to...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 05:01:51 PM
Well, what WAS happening was the Government said that Corporations does not have the right of free-speech to engage in public debate of political issues.....and NOW, they can....as they SHOULD be.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
All I am saying is.....Freedom of speech has no restrictions on WHO or WHAT it applies to...
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...................YES, IT DOES, HENRY. DO SOME MORE RESEARCH.
Even the President of the United States understands how wrong this decision was, and said so right in front of the wise fools from the hill, and the American people, in tonight's State of the Union Address.
I found it very interesting and hilarious to see the frowns on their faces when he called them on it too! :biggrin: (A couple of them even shook their heads to disagree with him during that portion of his speech!)
The POTUS's reasoning was exactly spot on and virtually mirrored the dissenting opinions expressed within this very topic! Almost verbatim! :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on January 22, 2010, 08:11:35 AM
Seriously...the biggest problem with our political system is that it is controlled by corporate interests and the Supreme Court finds that limits on how much money corporations can spend on political advertising are unconstitutional? In which part of the Constitution are non-human entities granted rights?
The POTUS said the same thing this evening!
Quote from: Palehorse on January 27, 2010, 10:50:05 PM
Even the President of the United States understands how wrong this decision was, and said so right in front of the wise fools from the hill, and the American people, in tonight's State of the Union Address.
He also said that in front of the members of the SCOTUS who rendered that decision.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is also politicized.
Quote from: Locutus on January 27, 2010, 11:07:07 PM
He also said that in front of the members of the SCOTUS who rendered that decision.
:biggrin: And a couple of them sat there shaking their heads as he was spanking them over it! :biggrin:
Not a smile crossed a single face in that group!
Quote from: Palehorse on January 27, 2010, 11:09:28 PM
:biggrin: And a couple of them sat there shaking their heads as he was spanking them over it! :biggrin:
Not a smile crossed a single face in that group!
because he was wrong....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 11:11:45 PM
because he was wrong....
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. As Ex's opening statement made very clear, that is exactly what is wrong with our congress and political system today; too many insurance companies and big oil companies swaying the votes on key legislation, like healthcare reform for example.
This decision just "opened the floodgates" and will make it 100 times worse than it has been to this point!
I said it once and I'll say it again. Having corporations deciding what is and should be news is just as bad as having insurance companies deciding what is and should be health care.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 11:11:45 PM
because he was wrong....
Henry, I'd love to hear just one cogent explanation as to how this decision by the SCOTUS benefits you, me, the members of the forum, and the American people. Please tell me how this decision, which extends corporate influence into the political process of this country can possibly benefit you or anyone else.
Please show me just once that you can weigh the pros and cons of an issue such as this.
Quote from: Locutus on January 27, 2010, 11:35:23 PM
Henry, I'd love to hear just one cogent explanation as to how this decision by the SCOTUS benefits you, me, the members of the forum, and the American people. Please tell me how this decision, which extends corporate influence into the political process of this country can possibly benefit you or anyone else.
Please show me just once that you can weigh the pros and cons of an issue such as this.
it comes down to simply acting according to our Constitution....McCain/Fiengold was constitutionally wrong...and it go revoked...period.
that is the pros and cons of this issue.....the scotus did what was right.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 11:52:15 PM
....the scotus did what was right.
No. They just reduced our individual votes to nothing more than toilet paper. :rant:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 11:52:15 PM
it comes down to simply acting according to our Constitution....McCain/Fiengold was constitutionally wrong...and it go revoked...period.
that is the pros and cons of this issue.....the scotus did what was right.
I reiterate.
------V
Quote from: Locutus on January 27, 2010, 11:35:23 PM
Henry, I'd love to hear just one cogent explanation as to how this decision by the SCOTUS benefits you, me, the members of the forum, and the American people. Please tell me how this decision, which extends corporate influence into the political process of this country can possibly benefit you or anyone else.
Please show me just once that you can weigh the pros and cons of an issue such as this.
What are the pros of having unbridled corporate influence into elections in this country?
See Rollerball with James Caan (1975)
There are no words to describe the absolute ignorance displayed in this thread.
There are words, but most of us would be chastised for using them! :biggrin:
Snobs! *sob sob* ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 03:29:09 PM
so that makes it okay for our government to stifle a company from spending it's money what THEY think is not fair...such as GM or Ford endorsing a candidate, but yet it is okay for the Media (MSNBC or FOX) to do the same thing?...
I think the law that was overturned was a bad law in the first place.....
Actually, I don't particularly like ANY corporations or unions as far as that goes, to tell us who or who we cannot voter for.........but I like it even less that our government is telling us what we can and cannot say! :rant:
You really are a fucking moron. You really do suck beck for your ideas and philosophy. The tobacco industry lied to the American people for years about the hazards of smoking, but you would defend their right to do so as free speech, wouldn't you? Corporations have NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS under our Constitution and you are dumber than I thought you were in defending them as having any. We got 8 years of bush because trailer trash such as yourself thought he was out for YOU, while sucking this country dry of it's wealth right into the hands of corporations because YOU think they have that right, as well.
It is easy to understand your ignorance. Your religion is just a symptom of it. You are easily swayed into the conservative ideals which is only a cover for making their rich friends even richer on the backs of the middle class. Funny thing is; they wouldn't even let you clean their pool, let alone have YOUR best interests in mind. One has to be born into the wealth that controls this country and they are the friends of the corporate wealth that you think has RIGHTS. Absolutely fucking sad and a sign there is little hope for the future of this country. You represent too many, uneducated, moronic tools that salivate like a Pavlovian dog at the very terms "conservative", "god and country", "glen beck's on", ...
A point that Henry seems to be missing here is that this opens the door for foreign interests to influence our electoral process. Congratulations! :rolleyes:
Quote from: dan foster on January 28, 2010, 11:31:28 PM
You really are an f'in moron. You really do suck beck for your ideas and philosophy. The tobacco industry lied to the American people for years about the hazards of smoking, but you would defend their right to do so as free speech, wouldn't you? Corporations have NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS under our Constitution and you are dumber than I thought you were in defending them as having any. We got 8 years of bush because trailer trash such as yourself thought he was out for YOU, while sucking this country dry of it's wealth right into the hands of corporations because YOU think they have that right, as well.
It is easy to understand your ignorance. Your religion is just a symptom of it. You are easily swayed into the conservative ideals which is only a cover for making their rich friends even richer on the backs of the middle class. Funny thing is; they wouldn't even let you clean their pool, let alone have YOUR best interests in mind. One has to be born into the wealth that controls this country and they are the friends of the corporate wealth that you think has RIGHTS. Absolutely f'in sad and a sign there is little hope for the future of this country. You represent too many, uneducated, moronic tools that salivate like a Pavlovian dog at the very terms "conservative", "god and country", "glen beck's on", ...
Sorry for the language, but this strikes at the heart of the problems we face in this country; an ignorant electorate.
The sad part is this decision has only put the problem on steroids; what this does is guarantee that the problem now is going to be an even bigger problem for decades to come.
Interestingly enough the media, also part of corporate Amerika, is also drawing the lines of separation between themselves and their customers, by supporting this crap and furthering their own interests. And the sheeple bleat and follow their masters. (I say masters because now you have millions of them in the guise of the major corporations that are going to dictate your future).
It is bad enough when a corporation tramples all over your individual and constitutionally protected rights, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it because the law says that constitutional rights are not protected from major corporations. They are not applicable because corporations are not subject to the constitution. (As happened to me here recently) But now it would seem the SCOTUS is saying that simultaneously corporations are protected and granted these rights even though they do not have to abide by them? Bullshit! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the protections apply to them then so does the responsibility to abide by them!
If I could find a lawyer with large enough balls, and had a small fortune to waste. . . but the fact is I don't; and THAT is the problem. Most of us don't. And the only ones that do are major corporations!
Quote from: Palehorse on January 30, 2010, 03:38:36 PM
The sad part is this decision has only put the problem on steroids; what this does is guarantee that the problem now is going to be an even bigger problem for decades to come.
Interestingly enough the media, also part of corporate Amerika, is also drawing the lines of separation between themselves and their customers, by supporting this crap and furthering their own interests. And the sheeple bleat and follow their masters. (I say masters because now you have millions of them in the guise of the major corporations that are going to dictate your future).
It is bad enough when a corporation tramples all over your individual and constitutionally protected rights, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it because the law says that constitutional rights are not protected from major corporations. They are not applicable because corporations are not subject to the constitution. (As happened to me here recently) But now it would seem the SCOTUS is saying that simultaneously corporations are protected and granted these rights even though they do not have to abide by them? Bullshit! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the protections apply to them then so does the responsibility to abide by them!
If I could find a lawyer with large enough balls, and had a small fortune to waste. . . but the fact is I don't; and THAT is the problem. Most of us don't. And the only ones that do are major corporations!
...only the ACLU has the balls, but they don't have enough money. I give when I can.
Well, somebody could just go out and shoot those who are lobbying for major corporations.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 31, 2010, 06:01:36 PM
Well, somebody could just go out and shoot those who are lobbying for major corporations.
There isn't enough ammo. . . :biggrin:
And the number of major lobbyists is about to increase exponentially.
I expect a big sign to be erected at the boarders and upon the statue of liberty saying:
"Welcome to The United States of America, Inc."
Brought to you by XYZ LLP, Inc. The official sponsor of The USA, Inc.
:biggrin:
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/USAINC.jpg)
Hank, since you appear to be the main one here - if not the only one - making the claim (and vehemently at that) the Supreme Court was correct in their ruling, I truly wish to hear your (not just a bunch of C/P links - except for evidence and NOT from the usual suspects, if you know what I mean) legal arguments that they arrived at the proper conclusion.
For you to have gotten as steamed as you did over this topic, you must have some sound and compelling argument - right? :confused:
Did you mean to post that in the 'bad jokes' thread, Y? :biggrin:
This would allow traceability and end under the table cash infusions to one candidate from overseas investors... OOps poor Obama :)
I might be off-base here, but you don't seem to like Obama very much :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 04, 2010, 10:26:34 AM
Did you mean to post that in the 'bad jokes' thread, Y? :biggrin:
:biggrin: No.
You know me, I expect people to hold logical and persuasive reasons for advancing the 'opinions' they do. I also expect them to be intellectually honest and bow to facts, evidence, logic, and the superior argument based on those things. I expect honest discourse, and I don't expect people to spew BS just to play with people's minds.
I seriously doubt we'll ever see a healing of the divide in this nation until we can have honest discourse and an honest evaluation of the differences between us.
The adage 'All sides of an issue cannot be true' comes to mind here.
Quote from: Doc on February 05, 2010, 09:06:42 AM
This would allow traceability and end under the table cash infusions to one candidate from overseas investors... OOps poor Obama :)
I would really like to hear an explanation of such a stupid remark.
"In other words: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ;)"
Yes, the teabaggers are a good example.
Here is an article that I support, along the recent SCOTUS decision...
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/02/when-individuals-form-corporations-they-dont-lose-their-rights/ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/02/when-individuals-form-corporations-they-dont-lose-their-rights/)
if you even give a flip of my point of view... :razz:
I just read this and thought I would pass it on to those who want to know WHY?
Quote from: Y on February 03, 2010, 02:40:57 PM
Hank, since you appear to be the main one here - if not the only one - making the claim (and vehemently at that) the Supreme Court was correct in their ruling, I truly wish to hear your (not just a bunch of C/P links - except for evidence and NOT from the usual suspects, if you know what I mean) legal arguments that they arrived at the proper conclusion.
I told you so. :razz:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 01, 2010, 03:42:54 PM
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/USAINC.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2010, 12:03:12 PM
I told you so. :razz:
I know. One of these days I have to stop being the eternal optimist.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 10, 2010, 11:58:39 AM
Here is an article that I support, along the recent SCOTUS decision...
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/02/when-individuals-form-corporations-they-dont-lose-their-rights/ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/02/when-individuals-form-corporations-they-dont-lose-their-rights/)
if you even give a flip of my point of view... :razz:
I just read this and thought I would pass it on to those who want to know WHY?
Hank, what is the matter with you? Can't you even tell from the title of that link/article that it's BS/propaganda?
I mean, really. You can't look at this:
"When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don't Lose Their Rights"
...and see the problem with their premise?
You know I like you, but good grief!
So you just stopped with the title?...........and BANG! it's propaganda?
Did you actually read it or just assumed it to be another Big Business propaganda story?...
THIS is what cracks me up....there is NO amount of ANYTHING, that I could provide that will EVER convince any of you to think any differently....your minds are made up.
but, when someone on the RIGHT is strong opinionated...they are mere victims of propaganda..
Corporations don't have human rights.
Otherwise, Ford would have been convicted of premeditated murder for the Pinto scandal.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 11, 2010, 04:56:20 PM
Corporations don't have human rights.
Otherwise, Ford would have been convicted of premeditated murder for the Pinto scandal.
And I could have sued that company for infringement of my constitutional rights, and retired. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 11, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
So you just stopped with the title?...........and BANG! it's propaganda?
Did you actually read it or just assumed it to be another Big Business propaganda story?...
THIS is what cracks me up....there is NO amount of ANYTHING, that I could provide that will EVER convince any of you to think any differently....your minds are made up.
but, when someone on the RIGHT is strong opinionated...they are mere victims of propaganda..
Get real, Hank. The title is the premise - you do know what that means, don't you? - and the article goes on to support that premise. The premise is obviously flawed from the start, and yet you act as if you read and understood anything in that article. So why don't you tell me, Hank, how that premise is sound - because I can certainly tell you how it's fatally flawed.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 11, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
So you just stopped with the title?...........and BANG! it's propaganda?
Did you actually read it or just assumed it to be another Big Business propaganda story?...
THIS is what cracks me up....there is NO amount of ANYTHING, that I could provide that will EVER convince any of you to think any differently....your minds are made up.
but, when someone on the RIGHT is strong opinionated...they are mere victims of propaganda..
Just try reading the title again, hank; "When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don't Lose Their Rights". No one ever said individuals lose their rights when they form corporations, but the goddamn corporation is no longer just the individuals, it is a thing that has no goddamn individual rights; it isn't an individual. Hope that helps. I can use single words, and links to their meanings at yourdictionary.com, until you get it, if needed.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 11, 2010, 05:03:18 PM
And I could have sued that company for infringement of my constitutional rights, and retired. . .
Nothing against you PH, but it has become THIS kind of mind set, that has put our healthcare in the mess it is in today......because we have the ability to sue any the medical industry for millions and millions of $$$ anytime one makes a mistake.....
I know YOU situations is different, but your comment made me think about how so many folks are looking to get "rich" at the expense of others...."greed" is NOT just a "corporate" problem.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 08:51:42 AM
Nothing against you PH, but it has become THIS kind of mind set, that has put our healthcare in the mess it is in today......because we have the ability to sue any the medical industry for millions and millions of $$$ anytime one makes a mistake.....
I know YOU situations is different, but your comment made me think about how so many folks are looking to get "rich" at the expense of others...."greed" is NOT just a "corporate" problem.
Wow. So now you are endorsing corporate rights above and beyond individual constitutional rights? Wow. . . that is disappointing. . .
If you aren't how can you even make such a stretch? (And it is a huge one at minimum).
So tell me, just what recourse would you say is justifiable when a corporation trounces, (blatantly I might add), an individual's constitutional rights, and said action imposes material loss?
Jail time? Who goes, who pays for the incarceration, and just how does it impose corrective action upon the corporation? (Answers- Some corporate fall guy, the taxpayers, and it doesn't).
Maybe a multi million dollar fine imposed by the courts, received by the courts, and passed along to the government? (Leaving the victimized no redress).
As for the health care situation, lets hope you or no one you love is ever subjected to a physically maiming or life changing/ending case of medical malpractice if things go your way. The government will impose multi million dollar fines upon the entity found guilty of the action and again, leave the victim to "deal with it" for the rest of their life, or family to suck it up and get over it.
:spooked:
Palehorse you completely missed my point, or I did a poor job of explaining my point...(probably the later.. :redface: )
An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....then they sued a local hospital because his mother died because an overdose of painkiller that a nurse accidental gave...his mother was already near death at this time with sever diabetes, and the doctors had already stated she had less than a month to live...but these folks SUED and WON, again several MORE thousand dollars...
He retired at thirty because OUR legal system is out of control....common sense and decency no longer exists for many, many folks....and I'm not giving a pass to corporate scum or the corruption on their end....but, people as individuals are also very corrupt and greedy, and don't care WHO else their actions affect as long as they are getting THEIR piece of the pie...
I am not endorsing coporate rights above and beyond individual rigths.....but they should not be underneath them either...they should be on equal playing fields....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 09:36:45 AM
Palehorse you completely missed my point, or I did a poor job of explaining my point...(probably the later.. :redface: )
An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....then they sued a local hospital because his mother died because an overdose of painkiller that a nurse accidental gave...his mother was already near death at this time with sever diabetes, and the doctors had already stated she had less than a month to live...but these folks SUED and WON, again several MORE thousand dollars...
He retired at thirty because OUR legal system is out of control....common sense and decency no longer exists for many, many folks....and I'm not giving a pass to corporate scum or the corruption on their end....but, people as individuals are also very corrupt and greedy, and don't care WHO else their actions affect as long as they are getting THEIR piece of the pie...
I am not endorsing coporate rights above and beyond individual rigths.....but they should not be underneath them either...they should be on equal playing fields....
While I do not know the specifics surrounding either case you present here, I do know that if the legal system granted monetary award as a means of recourse, then it must have found an egregious level of liability in each situation.
Sitting on the outside of these situations allows one the ability to make assumptions without being privy to full disclosure surrounding the facts of the case(s) in question. I dare say that the individuals that served on the jury of these cases know/knew far more surrounding what transpired and who was responsible for it, and I have faith that they performed their duty to the best of their ability, and made their decisions to award damages only after full disclosure was accomplished, and based upon the knowledge said disclosure afforded them. Moreover, the presiding judge has the ability to over-rule judgments that are excessive or exceed the limitations of the law in most states, and we must trust that they perform their duties strictly within the ascribed laws and policies applicable to the situation, faithfully.
In either case, the appeals process is in place to remedy those instances of potential abuse of the system, laws, and policies.
As it stands today, corporations now have the ability to reduce individual voting to the level of toilet paper, via the use of their corporate profit to finance the campaigns of individuals who see things from their perspectives and not the voters will or intention. Additionally, your individual, constitutionally granted rights can be trampled upon with extreme prejudice by these same corporations, with no recourse left to you what so ever.
Now, does it seem fair to anyone with a rational mind that corporations are provided a powerful voice (via their money) within our legislative branch, with which they can impose law and policy upon the individuals of this country, based upon a constitutional right that grants this right to
individuals, yet these same corporations are
not legally bound to comply and extend these same constitutional rights to the individuals? That's exactly what the SCOTUS decision has put into place. And you can rant and rave about how so many corporations are "trustworthy" entities, but let me tell you something; there isn't a single corporation within the borders of this country that will not abuse that trust, and wear it out in the process, if it means fattening up the bottom line of their annual financial performance. Not one.
And if you happen to work for them within the State of Indiana, they can fire you for anything, deny you your unemployment insurance, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it. Zip. Nothing, Nadda. You are SOL PERIOD! They don't even have to provide any reason what so ever for firing you either. You cannot sue them, you cannot take any legal action what so ever against them in this state. So you are a screwed pooch at both the state and federal levels now.
First of all...... :yes: .......DANG!...I wish you could find a job, where you could utilize your skills at "WRITTING"..because you are amazing at it. :yes:
Secondly, I think it is JUST as appalling to think that our government can tell corporations (any business big or small) that they do not have the right to spend their profits as they see fit.
A corporation is merely an association of individuals....
Now, I'm not saying that I LIKE what many of them do with their monies and profits....and I know for a fact that many of them are greedy and corrupt. We need more judges, who interpret the law, according to our Constitution, and not allow, corrupt lawyers to spin and twist the law, to favor the outcome they want, in order to gain favor politically and/or monetarily.
Thirdly, and I know I am out of my league here, so I shouldn't even try to argue, but just to play devils advocate....why shouldn't an owner be able to fire or hire who ever he/she wants? based upon whatever reason he/she wants...? I know there a lot's of reason's why based upon common decency but, LEGALLY, what rights in our Constitution tells us that we cannot be fired for whatever reason?...
We all have a free choice to make, IF we choose to work for someone....nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and tells them they HAVE to work for a particular company.....
agian, I'm just throwing that concept out there for arguements sake...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
. . .
Secondly, I think it is JUST as appalling to think that our government can tell corporations (any business big or small) that they do not have the right to spend their profits as they see fit.
I think that position is subjective, so you are going to have to clarify it a bit for me to respond in detail; but the short answer is:
If that "corporation" today exists because of a government taking action(s) to assure its longevity, especially in the form of financial support, and a case can be made for fiscal irresponsibility being the root cause behind the need for said governmental action, then yes they should have the ability to intercede. Subjective of course, but when that "corporation" is handing out 7 figure bonus checks to the individuals responsible for the situation that drove the collapse, I do expect that the government would undertake actions necessary to impose corrective action toward remediation of the abuse and irresponsible spending of taxpayer money.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
A corporation is merely an association of individuals....
And said "association" removes the status of the individual as it pertains to the corporation, legally shielding said individual from specific liabilities that may come about because of actions/in actions undertaken by said corporation, that could otherwise potentially/legally threaten the individual rights of those who comprise the corporation.
That's the crux of corporate law, to shield the individuals that comprise the corporation from individual responsibility and protect their individual rights. NOT to assume another "individual" identity but rather create a legally recognized entity that is comprised of individuals, who do not risk their individual rights for the purposes of the corporation; except as specifically noted within the corporation structure and premises.
It's why civil actions undertaken against corporations do not automatically expose the individuals who comprise the corporation to jeopardy, other than within those specified aspects contained within the corporate structuring documentation, and those personal actions that can be adjudicated as abusive or irresponsible as they pertain to the corporate responsibilities of a specific position with the structure.
(Others within this forum are better educated within this specific venue of corporate law, but I have had my share of formal education surrounding it. So please jump in if I overstate or overlook any aspect of it).
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
Now, I'm not saying that I LIKE what many of them do with their monies and profits....and I know for a fact that many of them are greedy and corrupt. We need more judges, who interpret the law, according to our Constitution, and not allow, corrupt lawyers to spin and twist the law, to favor the outcome they want, in order to gain favor politically and/or monetarily.
At the corporate level that is
exactly what happened surrounding the recent SCOTUS decision, and it
will be abused, and it
will illegally reduce the will of the voting majority to the same level of impact as a fart in a hurricane. Game over. You will see.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
Thirdly, and I know I am out of my league here, so I shouldn't even try to argue, but just to play devils advocate....why shouldn't an owner be able to fire or hire who ever he/she wants? based upon whatever reason he/she wants...? I know there a lot's of reason's why based upon common decency but, LEGALLY, what rights in our Constitution tells us that we cannot be fired for whatever reason?...
We all have a free choice to make, IF we choose to work for someone....nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and tells them they HAVE to work for a particular company.....
agian, I'm just throwing that concept out there for arguements sake...
That environment is exactly why unions continue to prosper, and in my mind validates the need for them. Those within this state who do not enjoy the protection of working under a legally binding contract are in that very situation, and enjoy no protection or assurance that just because they have a job today have they any reasonable expectation that they will have a job tomorrow.
Yes, unions are abusive and money sucking entities in most situations, but when it comes to "at will status" states, they are the last line of protection for the average hard working individuals in the workplace. Their negotiated terms and legally binding agreements are the only protections enjoyed by the working class in this state, and what stands between them and the proliferation of abusive, unfair, and discriminating labor practices. If you are not working under a contract you have zero rights as a worker.
The sad part of it is that I never felt very supportive of unions and unionization within the work force until I came to the state of Indiana; and it has been a very bitter pill for me to swallow to come to the realization that everything I thought I learned and knew about labor, labor law, and fairness amounts to nothing more than a pile of excrement in this state, and those with "at will status" surrounding labor relations.
It stacks the deck in
strong favor of those companies/employers who pursue non-union working environments, and leaves the average worker subject to the whims and amusement of his employer. Nothing more than chattel.
the bottom line is if you or myslef, or Joe the plumber, or Ford Motors wants to spend money on a commercial to promote a candidate, one year or one day before an election....we should have that right.....the rammifications pro or con, are all the same....some may choose NOT to purchase a Ford, or use Joe as his/her plumber.....based upon the honesty or the integrity of the commercial....but, for the Government to make laws .... violating our first admendment, which it did/does...forcing individuals or an association of individuals, to be silenced.....is wrong.
We agree about individuals; we totally disagree about corporations.
Government is the only equalizer when there is a problem between individuals and corporations ("associations of individuals"). Law is the result of government action.
With me so far?
Imagine then, if you can, what will happen when corporations can buy those who make the laws. Further, when corporations can buy the Presidency (who nominates the members of the highest court in the land, the arbiters of differences between individuals and corporations), and the law making branch (Congress).
Still with me?
Now imagine that those corporations are owned by Chinese interests. A stretch? Well, since there are now Chinese investments in Coca-Cola.
Starting to feel a bit uneasy?
So am I. And if you want to really feel jumpy, go back and read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for starters to get a feel for corporate labor conditions before the rise of labor unions. Then try looking up the dispute in Matewan, West Virginia between miners and mine owners.
The ONLY reason you have a job with ANY protections at all is because of labor unions, the banding together of the workers who had absolutely no protection whatsoever, including protections to prevent dying at work because of incredibly dangerous and preventable conditions.
Want to go back to that?
Think it would never happen?
If you believe it couldn't, then ask yourself this: why did it happen in the first place?
Profit motive.
And that, my friend, has not changed since then.
Why WOULDN'T it happen again?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 03:45:30 PM
the bottom line is if you or myslef, or Joe the plumber, or Ford Motors wants to spend money on a commercial to promote a candidate, one year or one day before an election....we should have that right.....the rammifications pro or con, are all the same....some may choose NOT to purchase a Ford, or use Joe as his/her plumber.....based upon the honesty or the integrity of the commercial....but, for the Government to make laws .... violating our first admendment, which it did/does...forcing individuals or an association of individuals, to be silenced.....is wrong.
How many times have you purchased commercial airtime, or even ad space in a newspaper for that matter, (as a private citizen), to endorse or oppose a candidate for public office? Zero is the answer for the overwhelming majority of us. You know why?
We cannot afford it! (But guess who can?)
Now,
when corporations begin airing these commercials for candidates that you as a strictly private citizen are not going to vote for due to reasons of your own, how are you going to feel when the candidate you do support gets nothing near the visibility and exposure, if any? That's another reality.
The fact is even before this ruling
any one of us could have produced an endorsement for any candidate for public office, as private citizens. None of us do because it is too costly and
1 minute of network airtime will exceed what we make in a years time. Corporations don't have any such problem.
Whose voice do you think is going to be heard; yours, your neighbors, your towns, or the corporations? They most certainly did violate our rights, just not in the way you are implying. Unfortunately it is going to take the manifestation of these ramifications before you will realize and understand just what it is that is so blatantly
wrong about the SCOTUS decision, and you had better pray to that man upstairs that when you finally understand that this is wrong, that it can be reversed in short order. I am telling you that once the reins of power are handed over to the major corporations, as has been done with this decision, this country and its citizens will play hell in wresting them back from them.
Denying what is absolutely crystal clear and in front of your face is a dangerous gamble, and one this country has
already lost. They put your focus upon another area (health care) and emptied your power center while you were busy worshiping their propaganda. The horse is out of the barn, no sense closing the door now.
Next will come the gun grab. Watch. . . Then rendered defenseless and unable to put up anything more than a facade of defense against it, the country will be brought to its knees by corporate greed. And it will not be a long drop either; we're already on one knee as it is.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 12, 2010, 04:23:15 PM
We agree about individuals; we totally disagree about corporations.
Government is the only equalizer when there is a problem between individuals and corporations ("associations of individuals"). Law is the result of government action.
With me so far?
Imagine then, if you can, what will happen when corporations can buy those who make the laws. Further, when corporations can buy the Presidency (who nominates the members of the highest court in the land, the arbiters of differences between individuals and corporations), and the law making branch (Congress).
Still with me?
Now imagine that those corporations are owned by Chinese interests. A stretch? Well, since there are now Chinese investments in Coca-Cola.
Starting to feel a bit uneasy?
So am I. And if you want to really feel jumpy, go back and read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for starters to get a feel for corporate labor conditions before the rise of labor unions. Then try looking up the dispute in Matewan, West Virginia between miners and mine owners.
The ONLY reason you have a job with ANY protections at all is because of labor unions, the banding together of the workers who had absolutely no protection whatsoever, including protections to prevent dying at work because of incredibly dangerous and preventable conditions.
Want to go back to that?
Think it would never happen?
If you believe it couldn't, then ask yourself this: why did it happen in the first place?
Profit motive.
And that, my friend, has not changed since then.
Why WOULDN'T it happen again?
:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 12, 2010, 09:36:45 AM
An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....
Henry, that former neighbor of yours sued for damages. The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he was awarded is indemnity for the wages his father would have earned had he lived. I don't know what salary you make, but if somebody wiped me out in a car crash, I assure you my children could sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars, figuring my current earning rate multiplied by the number of years I could be expected to continue earning if I hadn't been killed. That is what "indemnify" means.
PH, if you were denied unemployment compensation you can fight it. And you can win. Email me.
Quote from: LOsborne on February 12, 2010, 07:01:51 PM
Henry, that former neighbor of yours sued for damages. The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he was awarded is indemnity for the wages his father would have earned had he lived. I don't know what salary you make, but if somebody wiped me out in a car crash, I assure you my children could sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars, figuring my current earning rate multiplied by the number of years I could be expected to continue earning if I hadn't been killed. That is what "indemnify" means.
PH, if you were denied unemployment compensation you can fight it. And you can win. Email me.
what ever happened to accidents? I know there are cases of negligence that justify things, but there ARE some outrageous cases of people being over compensated, way too many cases in my opinion....like the lady who got burned by coffee at McDonalds....this is the type of cases that are being abused and costing "citizens" billions of $ per year....it is fraudulent.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2010, 09:30:17 AM
what ever happened to accidents? I know there are cases of negligence that justify things, but there ARE some outrageous cases of people being over compensated, way too many cases in my opinion....like the lady who got burned by coffee at McDonalds....this is the type of cases that are being abused and costing "citizens" billions of $ per year....it is fraudulent.
You have the GOP so far up your ass, your dick looks like an elephant's trunk. There aren't too many lawsuits. There probably aren't enough. The right wingers use one or two cases to show the trend, but most people don't sue, when they should, and most can't because they can't win. Corps have it stacked in their favor. And, somebody suing another motorist and getting $1M is a hoax, or fiction from a movie. So, just keep on mouthing the words, just like you do for your religion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2010, 09:30:17 AM
way too many cases in my opinion....like the lady who got burned by coffee at McDonalds....
Henry, that took place in 1992. Since that is the one which leaps to the front of your mind, there can't have been all that many in the eighteen years since, or you would have cited a more recent one.
That lawsuit wasn't all that frivolous anyway. You would know that, if you had actually read about the case. Since you haven't, I'll provide the link.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
what ever guys..........my point is many, many lawyers have gotten a bad rap for a REAL reason, they have become 'opportunists'....not that all are bad, that is not what I mean, but we live in a world of people wanting to "get rich - QUICK"...and lawyers, promoted this concept, and I KNOW, people who have gotten large sums of money, because some lawyers have manipulated common laws to weigh in favor of themselves, to intimidate others into monitary exchanges to keep certain cases from going to court...and THIS, without a doubt has played into the rising costs of our healthcare....this is NOT even something that I will argue about, because I have witnessed it first hand....and THIS is an issue that needs addressed.
Justice going to the highest bidder?
Hmmmmm.................corporate lobbying..........contributions to candidates..........geeez
NAH.........that never happens and never will.
Quote from: LOsborne on February 14, 2010, 09:45:13 AM
Henry, that took place in 1992. Since that is the one which leaps to the front of your mind, there can't have been all that many in the eighteen years since, or you would have cited a more recent one.
That lawsuit wasn't all that frivolous anyway. You would know that, if you had actually read about the case. Since you haven't, I'll provide the link.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
That's interesting. I never knew those details about that case. Thanks for providing the link.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 15, 2010, 08:15:46 AM
what ever guys..........my point is many, many lawyers have gotten a bad rap for a REAL reason, they have become 'opportunists'....not that all are bad, that is not what I mean, but we live in a world of people wanting to "get rich - QUICK"...and lawyers, promoted this concept, and I KNOW, people who have gotten large sums of money, because some lawyers have manipulated common laws to weigh in favor of themselves, to intimidate others into monitary exchanges to keep certain cases from going to court...and THIS, without a doubt has played into the rising costs of our healthcare....this is NOT even something that I will argue about, because I have witnessed it first hand....and THIS is an issue that needs addressed.
Here is a fresh one for you hank. better go get some electrical tape...
Here is INFO worth the price of your car....
WHAT WILL the car thieves THINK OF NEXT?
The car thieves peer through the
windshield of your car or vehicle,
write down the VIN # from the label on the dash, go to the local car dealership and request a duplicate key based on the VIN #.
I didn't believe this e-mail, so I called Chrysler-Dodge and pretended I had lost my keys. They told me to just bring in the VIN #, and they would cut me one on the spot, and I could order the keyless device if I wanted.
The Car Dealer's Parts Department will make a duplicate key from the VIN #, and collect payment from the thief who will return to your car.
He doesn't have to break in, do any damage to the vehicle, or draw attention to himself. All he has to do is walk up to your car, insert the key and off he goes to a local chop
shop with your vehicle.
You don't believe it?
It IS that EASY.
To avoid this from happening to you, simply put some dark tape (electrical tape, duct tape or medical tape) across the VIN Number Metal Label located on the dashboard.
By law, you cannot remove the VIN, but you CAN cover it so it can't be viewed through the windshield by a car thief.
I urge you to forward this to your friends before some other car thief steals another car or truck.
I slipped a 3x5 card over my VIN
NUMBER. PASS THIS INFORMATION ON TO ALL YOUR FAMILY AND
FRIENDS NOW!!!!!
Seems as if the folks around here who oppose the decision made by the SCOTUS are in the majority. Even Republicans are against it.
Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.
But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."
The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.
However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."
Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100217/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1137
What has happened to the Supreme Court of America.
With giving George W. Bush the presidency. Giving towns and cities the right to steal and rob you of your home and property through eminent domain and give or sell that property to the big businesses or corporations, so they put their businesses, condos, improvements on your property so the town or cities can make more property tax money than they were making on your house or property. Just plain outright theft.
I cannot believe, anyone would believe a corporation has the right to be considered a human being with a heart. a soul and is a living thing.
A corporation is a godless, heartless entity with no morals, no conscience. With no loyalty to God and country and only worships the bottom line.(profits, money). Corporations have no loyalty to the United States of America, it's people and in a lot of cases they cheat and steal from their own stockholders. At least the UNIONS do work for their members and have benefited their people in many ways. They also have helped other people who are not union workers. Like the 40 hour week. Corporations would like to work you 70 hours a day, 52 weeks a year. Tell one thing corporations has benefited stockholders, like Enron, Tyco, General Motors and many more companies. And you want these corporations to buy our politicians.
What is so sickening about this ruling is, foreign corporations can now buy our politicians like Shell, Exxon, BP many more companies that don't give a damn about America, it's people and what we stand for. Just profits and money it will make. Just like Toyota which sold us their shitty cars, that speed up and you can't stop them. Now they are leaving this country and going where the labor is cheaper. And to think Toyota never has had a union. They how have a base of stupid American buyers and they want to suck every dollar, quarter, dime, nickle and penny out of this county. And we have the blind Republican who won't see, will still buy foreign cars. It was the American corporations that built the war material that won World War II. Some people just won't get it.
The Troll.
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-20/goldman-employees-donated-1-million-to-obama-campaign.html (http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-20/goldman-employees-donated-1-million-to-obama-campaign.html)
Goldman Employees Donated $1 Million to Obama Campaign
Interesting...and so is this:
Reid dodges questions on Goldman $$$
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275442.aspx (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275442.aspx)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 27, 2010, 03:51:07 PM
so your answer is for government to start telling the people HOW to spend their money?....and HOW and WHEN to speak?....What about the "Influences that the MEDIA" has in Washington?...is that next?.....Why don't they make laws to get rid of lobbyiests?......
Oh my god, what in hell is wrong with your brain. Other than taxes you can spend your money any way you want. But a Corporation? One more time, Henry.
A Corporation is a godless entity, with no conscience, no morals. Owing no allegiance to the United States of America nor it's people. Worshiping at the alter of the bottom line. It's sole purpose of making as much money as it can, anyway it can, for it's leaders and it's stockholder. At the least cost and labor cost to it's self. Most of all Corporations consider themselves, World Corporations. Owing no allegiance to no one but it's self.
Searching the world the lowest price products and bringing them back to the United States and killing the middle class working men and women and taking their jobs for their profit. If you really look at, we are living in a slave economy, we are living off of the back of low wage slaves in other countries.
For you, you can't see what you won't see. Brain death, it's the only thing it can be.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
Quote from: The Troll on April 21, 2010, 01:47:02 PM
Oh my god, what in hell is wrong with your brain. Other than taxes you can spend your money any way you want. But a Corporation? One more time, Henry.
A Corporation is a godless entity, with no conscience, no morals. Owing no allegiance to the United States of America nor it's people. Worshiping at the alter of the bottom line. It's sole purpose of making as much money as it can, anyway it can, for it's leaders and it's stockholder. At the least cost and labor cost to it's self. Most of all Corporations consider themselves, World Corporations. Owing no allegiance to no one but it's self.
Searching the world the lowest price products and bringing them back to the United States and killing the middle class working men and women and taking their jobs for their profit. If you really look at, we are living in a slave economy, we are living off of the back of low wage slaves in other countries.
For you, you can't see what you won't see. Brain death, it's the only thing it can be.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
I want to tell you something Troll, I started out in my married life with nothing. I did not go to college, but I worked VERY hard at every job I had the priviledge to work at. Same with my wife. I never had a UNION force a boss to give me MORE money based upon NO reason.....I got raises because I worked hard and became a value to the owner......the owner saw the value in me and gave me more money and benefits.....the owner, liked my ethics and attitude...I went to school, on my own time, to make myself even MORE valuable.....I played DAD to five great kids, managed to stay married and very much in love, and found time to study.....I am not through either, I am preparing to take my next step at getting more credentials, furthering my education. I hope these evil Corporations keep on spending $$$, because if they stop we are all screwed.....
quit living in the past and expecting handouts.....people today have to get prepared and educated or the will get ran over....THAT is just the way it is....
making a skilled pay for doing an unskilled job is no longer available....it is OUR choice to make it or not.
I don't particuarly like this "world" economy either, but that is the cards we are dealt.....the way I see it, conseratives want to restore the small entreprenuers opportunities in this country, by creating tax breaks and incentives.....NOT raising taxes and taking away their opportunities.....
brain dead? I don't think so.....just being realistic.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 21, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
I want to tell you something Troll, I started out in my married life with nothing. I did not go to college, but I worked VERY hard at every job I had the priviledge to work at. Same with my wife. I never had a UNION force a boss to give me MORE money based upon NO reason.....I got raises because I worked hard and became a value to the owner......the owner saw the value in me and gave me more money and benefits.....the owner, liked my ethics and attitude...I went to school, on my own time, to make myself even MORE valuable.....I played DAD to five great kids, managed to stay married and very much in love, and found time to study.....I am not through either, I am preparing to take my next step at getting more credentials, furthering my education. I hope these evil Corporations keep on spending $$$, because if they stop we are all screwed.....
quit living in the past and expecting handouts.....people today have to get prepared and educated or the will get ran over....THAT is just the way it is....
making a skilled pay for doing an unskilled job is no longer available....it is OUR choice to make it or not.
I don't particuarly like this "world" economy either, but that is the cards we are dealt.....the way I see it, conseratives want to restore the small entreprenuers opportunities in this country, by creating tax breaks and incentives.....NOT raising taxes and taking away their opportunities.....
brain dead? I don't think so.....just being realistic.
There a Authoritarians and Authoritarians followers. You are differently a Authoritarian follower. Taking any and everything the boss man tells and gives you. Graveling at his feet and praying if you kiss his ass enough, he might give you a crumb from his table.
Some how you, and you don't know a damn thing about it, have got the Union and your thinking about Unions all wrong. We the people are the Union. We freely elect our Union officials. We stand against the boss man and his selfish ways. You know, with out the Unions you wouldn't have live as good as you have and are now living.
And don't give me all that bullshit about how hard you worked. We all have worked hard, I know I have. The only real difference between me and you. I didn't have to kiss as much ass as you did with you nonunion job. Union people stand together and we fight as one. Not one asskisser against another asskisser. In order to have a strike, the union members have to vote, over 50%, to have one. It's a Federal Law!
I am sure glad I got to belong to a good union, The UAW. I didn't have to kiss ass to keep my job and I still have my pride. To hell with the Authoritarians.
The Troll :flag: :salute:
Walmart is full of conservatives while the small entrepreneur on the corner is closing his/her doors.
Conservative "wants" read loud and clear through actions. They couldn't care less about the "little guy".
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 21, 2010, 03:04:08 PM
Walmart is full of conservatives while the small entrepreneur on the corner is closing his/her doors.
Conservative "wants" read loud and clear through actions. They couldn't care less about the "little guy".
based upon my recent encounters at walmart, I would have to say they are full of democrats....mostly people who refuse to work for a living and are getting a free ride from our governemnt...THAT is the crowd I see there...
Quote from: The Troll on April 21, 2010, 03:03:32 PM
There a Authoritarians and Authoritarians followers. You are differently a Authoritarian follower. Taking any and everything the boss man tells and gives you. Graveling at his feet and praying if you kiss his ass enough, he might give you a crumb from his table.
Some how you, and you don't know a damn thing about it, have got the Union and your thinking about Unions all wrong. We the people are the Union. We freely elect our Union officials. We stand against the boss man and his selfish ways. You know, with out the Unions you wouldn't have live as good as you have and are now living.
And don't give me all that bullshit about how hard you worked. We all have worked hard, I know I have. The only real difference between me and you. I didn't have to kiss as much ass as you did with you nonunion job. Union people stand together and we fight as one. Not one asskisser against another asskisser. In order to have a strike, the union members have to vote, over 50%, to have one. It's a Federal Law!
I am sure glad I got to belong to a good union, The UAW. I didn't have to kiss ass to keep my job and I still have my pride. To hell with the Authoritarians.
The Troll :flag: :salute:
I can tell you that you are wrong, 100%....there was/is no ass kissing going on....THAT is just a lazy man's term, picked up back in the old UAW days....for not having to do a full day's work for a ful days pay......remember I saw first hand, of your lovely leaders that you voted to represent you....while they was taking money out of your paycheck and using it to play golf, fish and go to Vegas.....It happened Troll, I tell you I know first hand.....I witnessed it!!!...many, not all of them, but many of them should have gone to jail for their ethics....
before you get all jiggy with me Troll, I will somewhat apologize in saying that I do not have anything against factory workers or those who belonged to the UAW...and it was not a completely bad thing....I honestly do understand that the owners needed a checks and balance to their management...but, on the other hand, there WAS a bad side to the UAW that seems to be ignored, and I seem to want to defend the owners because of that reason.....I know coporpate greed exists and there HAS to be a fine line somewhere in between....
getting back on my point, I was fortunate to have had a very good boss/owner to work for, who has treated me very good, and out of respect I try to give him my best...he treats ALL of his employees very well. He has created a family atmosphere. I am still low on the totem pole, and I have been there almost 10 years now....we don't have much turnover.
Two points -
1. You don't know who those people are unless they had their voting registration and "handout" application stapeled to their sleeves.
2. You were there :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 21, 2010, 03:09:22 PM
based upon my recent encounters at walmart, I would have to say they are full of democrats....mostly people who refuse to work for a living and are getting a free ride from our governemnt...THAT is the crowd I see there...
I am quite sure you have seen Democrats working and buying at Walmart.
Most likely they are people who have lost the good paying jobs at American companies and people who don't have the money. After your clown George W. Bush and his Repubican buddies destroyed this country.
With over a 50% turnover in employees at Walmart, if it wasn't for Republican bad times. I don't think you would see people lined up to get a job there.
The average income of Walmart employees is $6,500 a year. You call this living. I call this slavery.
I serve my time in the Army like millions and millions of other men and women, so you can have your freedom. If you want to shop at Walmart and support the Chinese Army and the Chinese people, have at it. Did you serve any time in the services. Hummmmmmmm. Did you serve this country in any other way, other than bitching.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
Quote from: The Troll on April 21, 2010, 08:08:50 PM
I am quite sure you have seen Democrats working and buying at Walmart.
Most likely they are people who have lost the good paying jobs at American companies and people who don't have the money. After your clown George W. Bush and his Repubican buddies destroyed this country.
With over a 50% turnover in employees at Walmart, if it wasn't for Republican bad times. I don't think you would see people lined up to get a job there.
The average income of Walmart employees is $6,500 a year. You call this living. I call this slavery.
I serve my time in the Army like millions and millions of other men and women, so you can have your freedom. If you want to shop at Walmart and support the Chinese Army and the Chinese people, have at it. Did you serve any time in the services. Hummmmmmmm. Did you serve this country in any other way, other than bitching.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
Who says that all jobs have to support a family?........if walmart is a career path then there are bigger problems.....the vast majority of those jobs are excellent for 2nd jobs or for 2nd income jobs....such as a wife, whose spouse has a full time job....my sister in law works there and likes if just fine...her husband makes a good living, and she has flexible hours and makes 10 bucks an hour........there are thousands of people who need jobs like this.......without them, what would they do?.........not all places should have to support a family.....
with that said, I want to be clear I am not a Walmart fan, nor do I shop there very often.....I honestly do agree we should try to support those who try to keep America first....I go to Target or Kohls first and foremost.
Kohl's clothing is made in veitnam. not vermont.
Not only that but why do you think they're any better than Walmart, Henry? They still undercut the small business man that the conservatives claim to care so much about.
While I'm sure that many of the employees of Walmart and other such stores would like to be fortunate enough to have other incomes, the reality is that is not the case. That's another demographic that the conservatives could care less about...the working poor.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 22, 2010, 08:37:29 AM
Not only that but why do you think they're any better than Walmart, Henry? They still undercut the small business man that the conservatives claim to care so much about.
While I'm sure that many of the employees of Walmart and other such stores would like to be fortunate enough to have other incomes, the reality is that is not the case. That's another demographic that the conservatives could care less about...the working poor.
That is a big crock Sandy, Conservatives have done more for the working poor than the democrats ever have...all the democrats have done is keep them dependent on the government for thier money.......conservatives promote a free enterprise enviroment to encorage everyone to be self reliant.....they way thing SHOULD be....I know I teach my kids to be self reliant, not for them to figure out a way to have government take care of them....I find it more compassionate to teach a person to fish rather than give them a fish...this has/is a democrat stategy to demonize conservatives as uncompassionate, to garner votes by "buying" off and taking advantage of the poor. The way I see it, the democrats have kept the poor - poor, to ensure their votes, by promising them they will take care of them....well, this theory has been around for 50 years and we still have poor folks...
What exactly has liberals done to promote small business?
Words are meaningless, Henry. How is supporting the bastardation of the Constitution to benefit corporations helping the small business owner?
You think that you're doing your part by shopping at Kohls and Target. You're blissfully unaware that people go to those stores and work their asses off to attempt to support their families. These are the ones who need assistance, but can't get it because they do have a job. But conservatives like to lump them into the very much smaller group of people who choose to be dependant on public assistance.
Next time you go to Walmart, tell the cashier to get off his ass and get a real job if he wants to eat. That's what you mean to say.
I suggest that you volunteer with a homeless outreach or food bank in a position where you can have conversations with the people who use them. It'll be eye-opening and fill in the gaps that your conservative social education have left blank.
Teach a man to fish - lip service considering that education isalways the first budget to get cut. Who does that effect? The children depending on the public school system to "teach them to fish".
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 22, 2010, 09:47:54 AM
Words are meaningless, Henry. How is supporting the bastardation of the Constitution to benefit corporations helping the small business owner.
You think that you're doing your part bt shopping at Kohls and Target. You're blissfully unaware that people go to those stores and work their asses off to attempt to support their families. These are the ones who need assistance, but can't get it because they do have a job. But conservatives like to lump them into the very much smaller group of people who choose to be dependant on public assistance.
Next time you go to Walmart, tell the cashier to get off his ass and get a real job if he wants to eat. That's what you mean to say.
I suggest that you volunteer with a homeless outreach or food bank in a position where you can have conversations with the people who use them. It'll be eye-opening and fill in the gaps that your conservative social education have left blank.
first of all, I HAVE and DO work in homeless shelters AND food kitchens..(that is the mean ol Christian in me)..and have had plenty of conversations with these folks...and by far all they want is a chance.....
and the VAST majority of those folks at walmart and kohls are there becasue they WANT to be....they are glad they have that job....Does ALL jobs HAVE to pay money to be a soul provider of a family?.....
now you got me wanting to defend these guys....stop and think about the low cost day to day items "poor" people need to buy that Walmart provides to them....
How about the $3.4 Million that Walmart just donated for grants to help people get back to work?.....
or the $467 million it gave to various charities in the US this past year?.....
93,000 children were fed through a donation to the Boys and Girls Club of America's summer feeding program...
Forty-thousand teachers were awarded $100 gift cards as part of Walmart's Teacher Rewards program, which helps offset expenses for classroom supplies...
Sixty-nine food banks across America received refrigerated trucks from the Walmart Foundation to help increase their capacity....
and more than 90,000 bottles of water, 24,000 blankets, 27,000 tents and more than 20,000 units of medical supplies like gauze and surgical masks were donated in response to the Haiti earthquake, to name a few.
the have employed 1.4 million in the United States....
average, full-time hourly wage for
Walmart stores is $11.75...
among the nation's largest providers of private sector health insurance....
so, look at the big picture.....here.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, Henry. I suspect b/c you can't keep up with what you've already said.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 22, 2010, 10:18:14 AM
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, Henry. I suspect b/c you can't keep up with what you've already said.
no, YOU just make me to want to defend... :spooked: ...I think I just like to argue.. :spooked: ..I need help!!!! :spooked:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 22, 2010, 10:13:44 AM
first of all, I HAVE and DO work in homeless shelters AND food kitchens..(that is the mean ol Christian in me)..and have had plenty of conversations with these folks...and by far all they want is a chance.....
and the VAST majority of those folks at walmart and kohls are there becasue they WANT to be....they are glad they have that job....Does ALL jobs HAVE to pay money to be a soul provider of a family?.....
now you got me wanting to defend these guys....stop and think about the low cost day to day items "poor" people need to buy that Walmart provides to them....
How about the $3.4 Million that Walmart just donated for grants to help people get back to work?.....
or the $467 million it gave to various charities in the US this past year?.....
93,000 children were fed through a donation to the Boys and Girls Club of America's summer feeding program...
Forty-thousand teachers were awarded $100 gift cards as part of Walmart's Teacher Rewards program, which helps offset expenses for classroom supplies...
Sixty-nine food banks across America received refrigerated trucks from the Walmart Foundation to help increase their capacity....
and more than 90,000 bottles of water, 24,000 blankets, 27,000 tents and more than 20,000 units of medical supplies like gauze and surgical masks were donated in response to the Haiti earthquake, to name a few.
the have employed 1.4 million in the United States....
average, full-time hourly wage for Walmart stores is $11.75...
among the nation's largest providers of private sector health insurance....
so, look at the big picture.....here.
Either you're are pulling our legs or you are the most stupid, lying sonuvabitch I have ever heard.
Just once I would like for you to read one book. "Supercapitalism by Robert Reich" and just see how charitable Walmart is.
I wonder how many people who are working part time for Walmart, would like to have a 40 hour week job with some benefits. I'll bet all of them.
Another book I would like for you to read is "What's wrong with Kansas". The poorest county in Kansas with an average income. Now this the average, from the highest to the lowest wage. The average income for the people was, less than $10,0000 per year and they voted for George W. Bush and the Republican Party 92%. They voted against their own interest. This is totally stupid.
I have meet a lot of people from the smartest to the most stupid dumbasses in the world. But you sure have got the last group bet all to hell. You have in the past talked about how poor you, your wife and your kids were and are. How you worked off your ass for low pay and you of all people defend the most greedy corporations in the country. You have got to have your head up you ass. I sure glad you think your god is truly taking good care of you. I think you need to fire him, he sure hasn't done a good job for you, especially in the mind. I think you only have one person on this forum, who think you're right.
Your charity, I bet is the the ladies who knocked on my door. They were Seventh Day Adventist. They wanted me to give money so they could send kids to their summer camp. I asked if they took any kids from other churches. They said. no. I told them, that if my kid couldn't go, I sure wasn't going to pay for their kid to go.
Just like I said before it's got to be brain death.
The Troll :preach: :preach: :pray: :salute:
What do you want Troll?.....to close down ALL Walmarts?......what law have they broken?...........What do you propose to fix this so-called problem?.............Do you think allowing a Union in Walmart would fix everything?......forcing them to pay MORE would drive up the costs and would more than likely cause them to shut down or lay off folks.....
I honestly understand your concern....it would be a sweet world if we could pay everyone a great wage....keep things inexpensive...supply great benefits to EVERYONE.....but the free market don't always work that way....would you prefer we turn into a socialist form of Government?....."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"....is THAT a slogan you think is best for this nation?
Hank
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 22, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
Walmarts?......what law have they broken?
Well, for starters, the Fair Labor Standards Act, various state Wage and Hour Laws (they don't pay for mandatory overtime, remember?), the Family and Medical Leave Act, in California the child labor laws, in Pennsylvania privacy laws by putting a video-cam in the employee restrooms, and so forth -- not to mention a whole gobnoxious bunch of international law violations.
There is lots and lots of documentation out there. Just google "Walmart employment law violations" and plan to spend the night reading. Keep your calculator handy too, because the settlements total into the
billions!
Now, stop and think. What kind of profit is Walmart pulling down, that it is cheaper for them to pay these fines and settlements, than to obey the law?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 22, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"....is THAT a slogan you think is best for this nation?
That sounds frighteningly close to something your Jesus would have said, Hank. What is your problem with it? Really ... how many millions can one greedy SOB really spend in a year?
I know all about the "enjoying the fruits of my labor" argument. But when we talk about sums this high, there was no
labor involved.
You say you have worked in soup kitchens and homeless shelters. I never have. But about a decade ago I took a tidy chunk of change off a guy in an executive suite who thought his position in the company entitled him to special privileges with women employed by the company. For the record, this idiot did nothing to earn his exalted position and salary except choose his grandparents wisely.
I was awarded damages ... and since I really hadn't suffered any tangible, monetary damage, I decided to let that cash make a real difference to women who did need it. I gave it to a foundation that works with single mothers, instructing them to pay child care for three years, for as many women as possible who wanted to get off Welfare, but couldn't afford to have someone watch the kids. The money went to four women. Ten years later, three of them are still working, and taking no government assistance. I'm real happy about that. As for the fourth ... hell, nobody wins 'em all.
This is what government assistance
should do. The sad reality is that government assistance is structured so these women couldn't get off. They would have had to leave their children unattended. Getting a job meant losing the assistance, and no entry level job pays enough to provide both day care
and food and shelter.
And that was the seed of my revolutionary plans. Poor people can't pay for all they need to work, and rich people won't. "From each according to ability... to each according to need" is not a bad starting point -- even if Donald Trump won't be able to fund another sleazy hotel.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 22, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
What do you want Troll?.....to close down ALL Walmarts?......what law have they broken?...........What do you propose to fix this so-called problem?.............Do you think allowing a Union in Walmart would fix everything?......forcing them to pay MORE would drive up the costs and would more than likely cause them to shut down or lay off folks.....
I honestly understand your concern....it would be a sweet world if we could pay everyone a great wage....keep things inexpensive...supply great benefits to EVERYONE.....but the free market don't always work that way....would you prefer we turn into a socialist form of Government?....."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"....is THAT a slogan you think is best for this nation?
Hank
Henry, Henry, if you would just read or listen to the book, "Supercapitialism" by Robert Reich. Go to your local library connected to Anderson Library and get the book or the sound recording and borrow or buy yourself a cheap CD player, I got mine at Best Buy, and listen to the book. If your have a boring job to do and you don't have to use your ears, you won't believe how fast time will go by. Or just sitting your recliner with your eyes closed, listening, isn't to bad either.
In the book, a research group on Walmart, said that Walmart could give all of their employees a $3 raise, the cost to Walmart would be only 3% of the total income. Just think, Walmart's pay to their employees, total cost of labor, is only 3% of their take. Theating employees right wouldn't cost you hardly nothing.
Unionization of Walmart would sure change things for their employees. First of all a raise. Second, the next time one of their asshole managers took one of their people in to chew out their ass or fire them, the bastard would get to meet the union committeeman and the employee would not have to stand alone before the boss. You surely know how it feels to stand alone in front of the asshole boss, all alone, by yourself, for something you don't deserve. Third there would be a lot more 40 hour full time jobs with benefits.
After the unionization of Walmart the other big box stores wouldn't be far behind. Also you boss will have to give you a little more, so you won't quit and go get a union job for more money.
Henry, I know all lot of your research is to try and back up what you say. Try, just one time. Goggle in "people who hate walmart" there is 45 pages of site you can go to for information. Just see how good your precious Walmart really is. Just one time, give the workers here in America a break. They have been beat up enough by the predatory corporations.
The Troll
Question for ya Troll. How much of that raise would the union get monthly?
more than what Walle world would give ya!
Quote from: me on April 23, 2010, 09:29:12 AM
Question for ya Troll. How much of that raise would the union get monthly?
Well, we paid at Ford for the union one hour per month, yes one hour per month. At that time I was making around $21 per hour and that was 13 years ago. Time and a half for all over time. Time and half for Saturdays and double time for Sundays. If you were to work some of the big holidays, like Christmas, Easter and News Year. We were paid triple time. Believe when I say, Ford did everything to kept from paying triple time. Like Lowes did to my son all of the time. It is really nice, to have the company not F**k up your holidays.
To us union people, believe me, we didn't mind paying union dues. We had protection from the company assholes. We had Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance, eye care and glasses. Ear care and hearing aids. Dental care and Lawyer service. The UAW charges their member, by what they make an hour. I have a friend who worked for a private sheet metal company making stamping part for Ford, he was one of the skilled big press operators. He was making $14 per hour and his union dues was one hour per month. Well, the part he made was "out sourced" and his little plant was closed down and he lost his job. Because he was a UAW member he still get his pension. The salary people lost every. Why, because they didn't have a contract, being a union member, he had a contract.
Another man I know was a engineer and working over a whole group of Skilled Tradesmen for GM. He lost everything and the government now pays his retirement. Because he didn't have a contract. Don't believe all the bullshit how the BIG UNION BOSSES TAKES ALL OF THE WORKERS MONEY, which is pure bullshit. Talk to some union members about the cost of union membership and all of the benefits the union got for them. The companies sure would not have gave us anything on their own. Just like your company doesn't give you anything they, may is say again won't give you anything they think you don't need. No matter how much ass you kiss and how much kiss their ring.
I worked for Ford Motor Company for 38 years and I say, I thank my lucky stars that I worked for one of the greatest companies in the world and most of all I got to work there under an UAW contract.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
Troll,
I am glad for you, and I am happy that my father was able to reap the benefits of the UAW...I know they made life wonderful for many, many hard working and deserving folks.
My only point was/is, that my personal opinion, based upon facts that I saw first hand...where the UAW got corrupt (for a lack of a better word) and abused by some of the Reps...I think that played a rather large impact on the demise of Delco Remy and Guide Lamp....and even as a whole for the GM across the land.
I think they went TOO far with their demands....but, I honestly do know why there had to be a union....I know there has got to be a checks and balances between Owners and the Workers.....I am fortunate, that I landed with a good, honest, family who takes cares of it's employess.
As far as Walmart...I don't think they are evil, but I think they probably could/should do better, but the same thing could happen to them as the Auto Industry if they pushed too hard....
I am familiar with the IBEW here in Indy...and I think they are a very good union...and I am hoping they don't get TOO greedy next month when they ask for a new contract, because things are very tough right now, and asking for anything more than they already have may be WAY too much for us to keep them busy this next year.
Greed is on both sides of the aisle, that is all my point is.
Quote from: me on April 23, 2010, 09:29:12 AM
Question for ya Troll. How much of that raise would the union get monthly?
Oh yes, Henry. Since I have been retired, 13 beautiful years. I still get Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental insurance for my Medicare. I still get my Ford Retirement, the most important benefit my drug plan. It's went up since the George W. depression. My dental care, getting a new bridge in two weeks, they say my co- pay is going to be $150. My eye care and glasses, just got my new glasses a month and a half ago, $35. Still got my hearing aid care, haven't need that yet and still got my Lawyer aid, we had new will made last year at no cost.
You want how much in Union dues I payed in the last 13 years. NOTHING, NOTHING. Henry you just keep believing the union is bad. You couldn't see a good thing, if someone put their foot up you ass.
The Troll, thanks to Ford Motor Co and thanks for the UAW! :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
Quote from: The Troll on April 23, 2010, 04:36:42 PM
Henry you just keep believing the union is bad. You couldn't see a good thing, if someone put their foot up you ass.
The Troll, thanks to Ford Motor Co and thanks for the UAW! :flag: :flag: :flag: :salute:
First of all, I think ANYBODY would find it rather hard to see a good thing with someones foot up their ass....is there something that I am missing on that? I'm pretty sure foot up the ass is a great distaction of finding good things....but that is just me... :yes: :eek: :razz: ;D
and secondly, I did say some nice things about the Union....agian, I don't think you read my post, you just kind of scan through it and make your own conclusions... :salute:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 23, 2010, 04:47:28 PM
First of all, I think ANYBODY would find it rather hard to see a good thing with someones foot up their ass....is there something that I am missing on that? I'm pretty sure foot up the ass is a great distaction of finding good things....but that is just me... :yes: :eek: :razz: ;D
and secondly, I did say some nice things about the Union....agian, I don't think you read my post, you just kind of scan through it and make your own conclusions... :salute:
Sorry Henry. I sent that post to you just before you sent your last post. They must have passed each other in the internet. Tho I am supprise that your dad was a UAW member. I wonder what he would have to say about you have said in your post about the UAW.
My dad worked as a skilled tradesman, sheet metal for Delco Remy. He spent 42 years with them, retiring from plant 11 on the by-pass. He lived until he was 91 and it brought tears to his eyes when they tore down plant 11.
He told me about, how GM fought the union in 1946. I can remember the strike. We would have meat once a week. My dad worked all kinds of jobs during that strike. Hanging wall paper and scooping corn and working for a farmer. He paved the way for the rest of us. I am surprised you feel about the UAW, since your your dad was a UAW member. Shame on you.
The Troll
Quote from: The Troll on April 23, 2010, 05:14:39 PM
Sorry Henry. I sent that post to you just before you sent your last post. They must have passed each other in the internet. Tho I am supprise that your dad was a UAW member. I wonder what he would have to say about you have said in your post about the UAW.
My dad worked as a skilled tradesman, sheet metal for Delco Remy. He spent 42 years with them, retiring from plant 11 on the by-pass. He lived until he was 91 and it brought tears to his eyes when they tore down plant 11.
He told me about, how GM fought the union in 1946. I can remember the strike. We would have meat once a week. My dad worked all kinds of jobs during that strike. Hanging wall paper and scooping corn and working for a farmer. He paved the way for the rest of us. I am surprised you feel about the UAW, since your your dad was a UAW member. Shame on you.
The Troll
My Dad also worked in plant 11 for several years...he had 44 years in before he retired....he is still alive (87)...and very thankful for his benefits....Dad, knows how I feel, and even understands, because he too, seen how many UAW reps was taking advantage....he also told me about one guy who was caught drunk several times and he never got fired....so, there WERE so serious down sides to it.....some guys who was lazy, but kept their jobs over guys who worked hard, JUST because they had more seniority...don't get me wrong, I am very thankful for the many guys like my dad, who worked hard, did their job and was rewarded quite nicely for it....I will always have a burr up my rump because what I experienced and witnessed to me, what was the downfall of a great thing.
Henry, very nice post. What I don't understand, if your uncle was an union official, why didn't he get you a job there. When I was working for Guide Lamp, I tried to get a apprenticeship there. I was told to go to a tutor that Guide Lamp endorsed. If he gave you a good word to the company, you most likely would get a apprenticeship. I went to Mr. Halsey, who has passed a long, long time ago and he started tutoring me. While I was going to him, he told me that he probably could help me, but to land an apprenticeship at Guide, the jobs usually went to Supervision's sons and Union official's sons.
Well, I work at Guide Lamp and was layed off in 89 days. That's what GM did to new employees, so they wouldn't get in their 90 days and become an union member. Now this was in 1956. They did it to one guy three times. The last time Guide hired him, he had made arrangement with a Navy recruiter to go into the Navy as soon as he was hired. When he got out of service the had 3 year of seniority. That was about the only way a young person could get a full time job a GM in the 50's.
We had an UAW reprentsentive living here in town. I heard Ford was hiring in Indianapolis. I went to talk to him about him helping me get a job there. He said yes and asked if I knew of anyone else who wanted a job. I said I had two friend who need a job. All three of us got hired that next day. Before he was through, he helped get on over 15 guys here from my small town to get a job at Ford. Most of them retired after 35 years. I put in 38.
Yesterday I talked to a friend of yours and asked him about you. I told him I didn't want to know your name or where you worked or where you lived. I wanted to know how old you were. Hell, I thought you were over 65. Hell, being in your 50s you ain't even dry behind the ears. I ask him where in hell did you get all of those F**ked up ideas. He said, I don't even know. But he's a real nice guy if you get to know him. His feeling about the the union? I think he wanted to hired and for some unknown reason he just couldn't make. I still like him.
So Henry, I am not going to fight with you over the union, especially since you are union raised and union feed and had union health care. If you don't like the UAW after all of that. I wasting my time. But we still have the Republican Party and The Republicans, the Teabaggers and your wonderfull predatory capitalism corporations to fight about. So the battle continues, it won't be about unions.
The Troll Let us :pray: :flag: :flag: :salute.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 23, 2010, 10:15:16 PM
My Dad also worked in plant 11 for several years...he had 44 years in before he retired....he is still alive (87)...and very thankful for his benefits....Dad, knows how I feel, and even understands, because he too, seen how many UAW reps was taking advantage....he also told me about one guy who was caught drunk several times and he never got fired....so, there WERE so serious down sides to it.....some guys who was lazy, but kept their jobs over guys who worked hard, JUST because they had more seniority...don't get me wrong, I am very thankful for the many guys like my dad, who worked hard, did their job and was rewarded quite nicely for it....I will always have a burr up my rump because what I experienced and witnessed to me, what was the downfall of a great thing.
I see this occurring in non-union jobs, do u hate non-unions also?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 23, 2010, 04:29:27 PM
Troll,
.....I am fortunate, that I landed with a good, honest, family who takes cares of it's employess.
Henry, I want you to make a copy of this post and put it away for you to read in the next 10 years or so.
You, in my opinion, this is what is going to happen to you in 5 to 10 year or so.
1. Your company's owners are going to retire or die.
2. Your company is going to go out of business or the kids will inherit it.
3. The kids will bankrupt it, take it over and make your job miserable or they will sell it.
4. The company or the person who buys it will try to make the employees pay for it, with wage reductions, less benefits and worst working conditions. Giving you nothing to work with and expecting you to do the same job for less money and less material and equipment to work with.
I have see this time, time, time and time again. When I was in the 8th grade I was going to work for the big three auto companies. GM, Chrysler and Ford. Well, I got to work for GM and Ford. One week after I was hired by Ford, Chrysler sent me a letter that I was to come in, that they had a job for me. Who in the world would have thought that our government would let all of these foreign cars in and almost destroy the Automobile Companies here in America. Their still here, hanging on. I bet it won't be true with your company. Nothing is forever. You need to start looking for a job with a large corporation who has been here in the USA for a long, long time, which is stockholder owned and not family owned. Family business usally live as long as the original owner lives.
The Troll :flag: :flag: :flag:
Hey Troll,
I just turned 50 a week ago, so I am not offically an old geezer but I am rapidly approaching.. :razz:
I still have young ones at home...
I just missed out on the hiring at the factory, about the time I graduated from HS, that is when the bottom began to fall out...
Again, like I have stated several times, I am very grateful that my parents (both) worked for GM and I was able to be a recipient of those special privileges...that GM and the UAW provide. I just felt they went TOO far an blew a good thing, along with NAFTA coming in....it simply ruined a good thing. I appreciate YOUR comments about "dropping" the UAW argument...and I agree, I have my strong feelings as do you.
I really am not a bad guy, I just have my very strong opinions just like you do....and you are right we have PLENTY of other fine topics, such as the corrupt congress, led by the democrats to bicker about.. :razz: ;) ;D
about the time u were getiing out of HS the auto industry in the USA was misguided not by union workers but designers that were producing hugs gas guzzling cars in the midst of a fuel crisis. Wrong move, they should have implemented an auto program to help with the fuel situation at that time, but they did no.
Quote from: Moonglow on April 24, 2010, 01:55:02 PM
about the time u were getiing out of HS the auto industry in the USA was misguided not by union workers but designers that were producing hugs gas guzzling cars in the midst of a fuel crisis. Wrong move, they should have implemented an auto program to help with the fuel situation at that time, but they did no.
Large corporations only make decisions based on one thing: bottom line. CEO's of large corporations only make decisions based on one thing: bottom line. Unions help workers keep some of the profits in the middle class, and are the only reason there IS a middle class in the US. The owners of the large corporations (including those that make nothing but money in the financial sector), and plenty of CEO's, now, belong to the top 1% of people in this country that own 99% of the wealth. In other words, the top 25000 people in this country have more money than the bottom 100,000,000. The middle class, wage earner has seen their wages drop about 3-5% over the last 40 years. The top 1% have seen their wealth grow by 500%. In the same period, CEO pay went from 5-1 over the average worker to 1000-1 of their average employee's salary. In the same period, unions were essentially busted and put out of business. So, the redistribution of wealth (the words of fear by the right wing fascists) HAS already taken place: up and out of the middle class. It is time to get it back to the folks that actually earn the money/make the wealth and it may be unions, again, that saves the middle class. The gov't works for the corporations, so no help there.