[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… lobbies are suddenly super different than they ever were, and the Koch brothers and their companies only employ a handful of people.
Oh and this just in: statements without context are used to try and make someone look like a racist.
Riveting stuff here. [/quote]
Koch employees would be better represented by Unions
[/quote]
I don’t believe this for a second. One of my best friends is a union pipeline special representative. The ironic thing is, which he no longer will talk to me about because I have beaten him up mercilessly, as a special representative he is an at-will employee. So, although he organizes on behalf for a union he is not protected by the union. Unions care only about the amount of money they can bring in for their own use just like any lobby group only they have fooled their members into thinking they give a rats ass about them.
[/quote]
nothing is perfect , your friend may not talk to you because , I don’t know Could it be because your a dick LOLZ just kidding too good to pass up
[/quote]
Lol. He just refuses to talk to me about the irony of his work situation anymore because he can’t defend it. Not surprisingly, the union pays him well to ignore this reality.
The difference between Union lobbies and Koch Industries Lobby is one represents 18 million people and the other a hand full of people.
[/quote]
Having been (briefly) a union member who tried to bring a complaint via the shop warden about a druggie who nearly got me and several other guys killed, I know personally that modern labor unions represent no one but the handful of people in charge of the union.
Did unions have their place, at one time? Yes.
Should the right to unionize remain? Yes.
Are the present unions anything more than a money gathering system for those at the top? No.
[/quote]
Depends on the Union. I’m an IBEW Local 26 member since '96. There have been PLENTY of times when a company has tried to fuck over one of my brothers and the BA has shown up on the job THAT DAY and sat all of us down (with pay) until the company made things right.
We are VERY well represented, are in good financial health and have a very strong membership. We actually PARTNER with our NECA signatory contractors to provide the very best value to all of the customers in our area. Do we have “total control” of our market? Of course not. There’s plenty of non-union companies that fill the needs of “basic” electrical construction/service. But if there is a “large” project or a “complex” project, it will always go Union in these parts - the non-union companies simply cannot compete and man a job with enough QUALIFIED people.
I will agree that there are plenty of industries where unions make little sense and serve mainly to aggravate an employer. But when you have about 8000 qualified guys, over 200 signatory contractors and a shit ton of government work, it makes good sense. We are simply THE BEST in our area. If a customer want’s the best they will go union. If they want to go cheap, we will be more than happy come fix all the fuck ups when the job is done a year late and 200% over budget. That happens ALL the time around here.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Collective bargaining can only be good for workers [/quote]
False, beyond false.
This will be the last off topic post I make in this thread so reply elsewhere.
But this is a load of utter horse shit. I’ve worked my ass off and now make more than people with 2+ years experience than I do. I’ve done quite well individually bargaining. I didn’t need the collective to get me a raise, not in any job I’ve ever had.
The Nazarine you mention is not particularly important to Jewish people. And I am not sure what the Christian religion has to do with a genocidal arabs who like to lob missles as schools.
[/quote]
Most conservative Christians would back the state of Israel because according to The Book of Revelations, Israel exists during the end times, so as long as it exists, it means the Second Coming is right around the corner.
The Nazarine you mention is not particularly important to Jewish people. And I am not sure what the Christian religion has to do with a genocidal arabs who like to lob missles as schools.
[/quote]
Most conservative Christians would back the state of Israel because according to The Book of Revelations, Israel exists during the end times, so as long as it exists, it means the Second Coming is right around the corner. [/quote]
I have wondered before whether or not this is a motivating factor for anybody around here.
Which is not to say that any given person doesn’t have other good reason to support Israel. I support Israel fairly strongly, and I certainly don’t think it’s got anything to do with Jesus’ return.
I’m almost convinced Hamas’ plan was to encourage an Israel invasion in the first place, or at least strong retaliation. They’ve wasted around 1500 missiles that I believe caused no causalities or serious damage. There’s a possibility Hamas thinks they’re only chance at “winning” is to get increasing international pressure applied to Israel. They can point to their civilian, women, and children casualties and claim disproportionate response.
Brett Stephen’s of the WSJ most recent piece was interesting. He says it’s a blessing to have Palestinians as enemies because they’re incompetent (e.g.; using their rocket arsenal without causing much damage) and uncivilized. He also says this about Israel:
“The real weakness is a certain kind of vanity that confuses stainlessness with virtue, favors moral self-regard over normal self-interest, and believes in politics as an exercise not in power but in self-examination. People, and nations, with such attitudes cannot be beaten militarily. But they can easily?too easily?be shamed.”
That is a salient point. But I think that Hamas knows this, and is exploiting it. I don’t think Hamas much cares when Palestinians die because they can exploit it and demonize Israel. Why else would they use so many rockets they know aren’t going to do anything? They tried in 2012 and it didn’t work so it’s not something new. What would make them think it would work this time?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Collective bargaining can only be good for workers [/quote]
False, beyond false.
This will be the last off topic post I make in this thread so reply elsewhere.
But this is a load of utter horse shit. I’ve worked my ass off and now make more than people with 2+ years experience than I do. I’ve done quite well individually bargaining. I didn’t need the collective to get me a raise, not in any job I’ve ever had. [/quote]
Stating opinion as fact again beans you are supposed to be part owner, now as I understand it ? You going to bargain with the other owners ?
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I’m almost convinced Hamas’ plan was to encourage an Israel invasion in the first place, or at least strong retaliation. They’ve wasted around 1500 missiles that I believe caused no causalities or serious damage. There’s a possibility Hamas thinks they’re only chance at “winning” is to get increasing international pressure applied to Israel. They can point to their civilian, women, and children casualties and claim disproportionate response.
Brett Stephen’s of the WSJ most recent piece was interesting. He says it’s a blessing to have Palestinians as enemies because they’re incompetent (e.g.; using their rocket arsenal without causing much damage) and uncivilized. He also says this about Israel:
“The real weakness is a certain kind of vanity that confuses stainlessness with virtue, favors moral self-regard over normal self-interest, and believes in politics as an exercise not in power but in self-examination. People, and nations, with such attitudes cannot be beaten militarily. But they can easily?too easily?be shamed.”
That is a salient point. But I think that Hamas knows this, and is exploiting it. I don’t think Hamas much cares when Palestinians die because they can exploit it and demonize Israel. Why else would they use so many rockets they know aren’t going to do anything? They tried in 2012 and it didn’t work so it’s not something new. What would make them think it would work this time?
[/quote]
I agree. I think the world would be best served by letting Israel go ahead and take out Hamas completely. Just shut up and let them work. The collective suffering of the Palestinians will be less if Hamas is done away with once and for all. Because you won’t have somebody constantly pestering Israel. Well, I guess for a little while anyway. Somebody I guess will replace them.
I like my idea better, anex the land and give everybody who doesn’t like it a bus ticket the fuck out.
Protip: If you want to be taken seriously, these words should be followed by mocking, not used as a resource to confirm your assertion.
Protip 2: Cowards like Maher (and Jon Stewart) who deflect and explain away their obnoxious, disrespectful, biased and hate ridden propaganda under the umbrella of “I’m a comedian” aren’t really authoritative sources for information.
At least people like Limbaugh and Hannity have the integrity to not hide from their statements with childish copouts of “I’m an entertainer and a comedian, satire.”[/quote]
I know people here don’t like Maher and yes Limpdick and Hannity have integrity eye roll
[/quote]
How is Maher relevant at all? Does anybody watch him? What’s his viewership, like 1000?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Israel crisis: Has Hamas made a tactical and political mistake?
Amen.[/quote]
What mistake do you think they made ? I do think boots on the ground has a bigger opportunity to be humane .
Dori Gold denies that Gaza is an occupied territory , I don’t what else you would call it . I think the reporting would be called excellent if Gold were made to address that point and all other subsequent situations
Protip: If you want to be taken seriously, these words should be followed by mocking, not used as a resource to confirm your assertion.
Protip 2: Cowards like Maher (and Jon Stewart) who deflect and explain away their obnoxious, disrespectful, biased and hate ridden propaganda under the umbrella of “I’m a comedian” aren’t really authoritative sources for information.
At least people like Limbaugh and Hannity have the integrity to not hide from their statements with childish copouts of “I’m an entertainer and a comedian, satire.”[/quote]
I know people here don’t like Maher and yes Limpdick and Hannity have integrity eye roll
[/quote]
How is Maher relevant at all? Does anybody watch him? What’s his viewership, like 1000?[/quote]
His relevance is the same as Limp Dick and Hannity . His viewership is not what others are because you must pay to watch his show . HBO has it figured out . He would not be on if he was not worth his keep and you can not tell me he is filler
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I don’t think Hamas much cares when Palestinians die because they can exploit it and demonize Israel.
[/quote]
You don’t need to speculate; this is a fact.
Hamas intentionally fires/places its rockets in populated areas so as to cause civilian casualties.
In fact, the IDF calls/texts every cellphone in a target area and tells people an attack is coming. The Hamas leadership goes and hides in bunkers and forces women and children to stay, often doing things like putting them on the roofs of buildings. Hamas then escorts the foreign press to the dead/wounded/mourning. It’s called the “Pallywood Production Co.”
I served as a combat engineer in the IDF. My role was to figure out how to blow up tunnels and arms depots without causing civilian casualties. Mine was (allegedly) a non-combat-arms position.
Unfortunately, because I am swarthy and can pass as arabic, I would often drive around in the arab-occupied areas in civilian clothes in a minivan to scout things out.
With some frequency, my team discovered the way to cause the least death was to park our car, go up to missle teams (including one time when they set up a battery in a play ground with children) and shoot the terrorists at point-blank range, then drive like hell to get out of there before the “authorities” arrived.
Just curious what the Pro Israel group think of this video ?[/quote]
It kind of skipped the first half of the 20th century. The story begins somewhere between 1880 and 1890, I think. I just read Stefan Zweig’s memoirs and there are some lines of Herzl. Sionism wasn’t Zweig’s thing, though.
The story begins somewhere between 1880 and 1890, I think. [/quote]
Some would argue it began long before that.
[/quote]
The claim is there but how much sense does it make when we look at the history of mankind. Some people said the promised land was in the west and there are good reasons to consider it to have been proven true.
But, all that is moot. What, 8 million + people in Israel. It’s reality and a possible peace some day can’t hold grievances. It could start with everyone in the area, with the exception of some couple of hundred thousand original locals (Well I don’t know how many they are), accepting that they are immigrants.
Could it be because your a dick