Current Events > this is literally how liberals think the world should work

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Gojak_v3 04/15/17 8:52:16 PM #51:	Bok_Choi posted... You're free to choose another job that hasn't unionized. You're free to not join the union. Can't find one because of where you live? Looks like you gotta get moving, buddy. How's that for liberal (Btw i'm not a liberal and I personally think people who hardline themselves into either social polarity are tools) Are you even paying attention? Again it sounds like yer making my point. My point was liberals want to force people into unions whether they want to or not. Look what happens when a state tries to pass right to works laws. Bok_Choi posted... Wouldn't the obvious solution to that be "improve all schools" not "only send kids to the good schools that exist" Like how dense does one (hypothetically) have to be to think that's fair or sustainable at all? Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. Bok_Choi posted... You know, like how you can withhold/report taxes paid as an employer, or be fined/jailed by the government. Boy that sounds familiar Are you really, REALLY gonna compare this to paying taxes? In this case you are forcing people to take part in something or be penalized. Even taxes themselves were the result of a person willingly doing something like getting a job or buy property. --- http://i.imgtc.com/rIZcfGBEt8.png <cite>Gojak_v3 posted [p:877271434] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>You're free to choose another job that hasn't unionized. You're free to not join the union. Can't find one because of where you live? Looks like you gotta get moving, buddy. How's that for liberal (Btw i'm not a liberal and I personally think people who hardline themselves into either social polarity are tools)</quote> Are you even paying attention? Again it sounds like yer making my point. My point was liberals want to force people into unions whether they want to or not. Look what happens when a state tries to pass right to works laws. <cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>Wouldn't the obvious solution to that be "improve all schools" not "only send kids to the good schools that exist" Like how dense does one (hypothetically) have to be to think that's fair or sustainable at all?</quote> Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. <cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>You know, like how you can withhold/report taxes paid as an employer, or be fined/jailed by the government. Boy that sounds familiar </quote> Are you really, REALLY gonna compare this to paying taxes? In this case you are forcing people to take part in something or be penalized. Even taxes themselves were the result of a person willingly doing something like getting a job or buy property.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gojak_v3 04/15/17 8:53:58 PM #52:	TheFuzz3451 posted... Antifar posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Yes there are policies in place which is why we don't need them Meanwhile at non-organized workplaces People losing limbs: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs Workers wearing diapers because they aren't afforded bathroom breaks: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/poultry-workers-denied-bathroom-breaks-wear-diapers-oxfam-report-n572806 I don't see the problem. It's just the free market at work. If we start holding job creators to standards such as not abusing their workers and acknowledging their basic rights as humans, then think about how much profit they'll lose. It's pretty fucking selfish of you to care about the general safety of workers over lining the pockets of the rich. Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today. --- http://i.imgtc.com/rIZcfGBEt8.png <cite>Gojak_v3 posted [p:877271524] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheFuzz3451 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes there are policies in place which is why we don't need them</quote> Meanwhile at non-organized workplaces People losing limbs: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs Workers wearing diapers because they aren't afforded bathroom breaks: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/poultry-workers-denied-bathroom-breaks-wear-diapers-oxfam-report-n572806</quote> I don't see the problem. It's just the free market at work. If we start holding job creators to standards such as not abusing their workers and acknowledging their basic rights as humans, then think about how much profit they'll lose. It's pretty fucking selfish of you to care about the general safety of workers over lining the pockets of the rich.</quote> Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bok_Choi 04/15/17 8:55:59 PM #53:	Gojak_v3 posted... Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. LOL --- I'm a good person. http://i.imgur.com/uj8LmVSl.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xPDF9Y0.jpg <cite>Bok_Choi posted [p:877271626] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. </quote> LOL</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gojak_v3 04/15/17 9:02:14 PM #54:	Bok_Choi posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. LOL Once again you have nothing to add so I won't bother with you anymore. It actually sounds like you don't know what yer talking about either so it's a waste of my time. Maybe you should think about how they are gonna fix a system where layoffs are based on seniority and not merit. In other words, like I said, the union gets in the way. You aren't gonna fix a system where you keep around bad teachers and layoff good ones just because they've been there longer. Last hired, first fired. --- http://i.imgtc.com/rIZcfGBEt8.png <cite>Gojak_v3 posted [p:877271947] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. </quote> LOL</quote> Once again you have nothing to add so I won't bother with you anymore. It actually sounds like you don't know what yer talking about either so it's a waste of my time. Maybe you should think about how they are gonna fix a system where layoffs are based on seniority and not merit. In other words, like I said, the union gets in the way. You aren't gonna fix a system where you keep around bad teachers and layoff good ones just because they've been there longer. Last hired, first fired.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlternativeFAQS 04/15/17 9:04:59 PM #55:	Gojak_v3 posted... lol yer a fool. A rock probably has a higher IQ than you. incredible <cite>AlternativeFAQS posted [p:877272117] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>lol yer a fool. A rock probably has a higher IQ than you. </quote> incredible</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/15/17 9:05:30 PM #56:	Gojak_v3 posted... Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't. --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:877272158] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today</quote> The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nomadic View 04/15/17 9:09:08 PM #57:	That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn. --- {}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{} {}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;> <cite>Nomadic View posted [p:877272363] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rob Cesternino 04/16/17 4:41:04 AM #58:	Liberals are communists. --- Stop asking me if I'm Jessica Simpson. Jewish girls Survivor is the greatest show EVER. are hawt <cite>Rob Cesternino posted [p:877290937] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Liberals are communists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 04/16/17 4:56:34 AM #59:	Rob Cesternino posted... Liberals are communists. Communists are communists. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:877291268] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rob Cesternino posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are communists.</quote> Communists are communists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 04/16/17 4:59:44 AM #60:	Rob Cesternino posted... Liberals are communists. hey look somebody who doesn't know what communism is --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:877291335] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rob Cesternino posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are communists.</quote> hey look somebody who doesn't know what communism is</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 04/16/17 5:10:20 AM #61:	Nomadic View posted... That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn. This is the biggest issue with Neocon logic. It requires antagonizing and strawmen to exist. How many times have people made the "X hard worker has his money stolen while lowlife benefits!" argument? It's not even an argument. It's bordering on a false dichotomy, using emotional ploys to make yourself look just. You'd think after arguing on message boards for years you might have analyzed some of the dumpster fire rhetoric you throw around, but I guess not. It's all based in the "Fuck you I've got mine" set of thinking and will create a villain in order to justify the mentality's existence. It's not even a matter of whether or not wealth redistribution is the correct avenue, honestly. Your post is just bad. It's a mess. It's illogical. It's poorly thought out. It contributes nothing. It's no different than liberals that throw emotional ploys on immigration. You have no ideological high ground on your opponents and no reason for more independent people (like me) to take you seriously. If you want economic conservatism is work, you're going to need to present real arguments for why it works using statistics and numbers and countries that have used ideas effectively, not garbage strawman arguments. --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:877291532] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn.</quote> This is the biggest issue with Neocon logic. It requires antagonizing and strawmen to exist. How many times have people made the "X hard worker has his money stolen while lowlife benefits!" argument? It's not even an argument. It's bordering on a false dichotomy, using emotional ploys to make yourself look just. You'd think after arguing on message boards for years you might have analyzed some of the dumpster fire rhetoric you throw around, but I guess not. It's all based in the "Fuck you I've got mine" set of thinking and will create a villain in order to justify the mentality's existence. It's not even a matter of whether or not wealth redistribution is the correct avenue, honestly. Your post is just bad. It's a mess. It's illogical. It's poorly thought out. It contributes nothing. It's no different than liberals that throw emotional ploys on immigration. You have no ideological high ground on your opponents and no reason for more independent people (like me) to take you seriously. If you want economic conservatism is work, you're going to need to present real arguments for why it works using statistics and numbers and countries that have used ideas effectively, not garbage strawman arguments.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 04/16/17 5:11:17 AM #62:	Great work, @Philoktetes. --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:877291545] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Great work, @Philoktetes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/16/17 5:16:19 AM #63:	Antifar posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't. Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:877291626] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today</quote> The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't.</quote> Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 04/16/17 5:17:20 AM #64:	Zero_Destroyer posted... Rob Cesternino posted... Liberals are communists. hey look somebody who doesn't know what communism is i'll expand on this for the sake of providing contribution where you provided none, Cesternino -Supporting regulation is not the same as supporting total state control of industry. -Most liberals I've seen do not support ending private property. Even if you pressed the ANTIFA dumbshits, they wouldn't want their big-ass properties owned by their rich parents to be made public property. ANTIFA are the closest thing to a proper communist group in the United States that's in any way prevalent and they're a bunch of rich suburban kids playing revolutionary because they got a little too butthurt over the election. That's your communist group, and they comprise, what? 3-4 thousand? The anti-Trump march was around 3-4 million and a few groups of a hundred ANTIFA thugs caused violence. At most 0.1% of a march likely mostly comprised of liberals. "REEEE Liberals fear mongering Russia." 5 seconds later "REEEEE commies!" good fucking god this country looks hopeless sometimes --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:877291646] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Rob Cesternino posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are communists.</quote> hey look somebody who doesn't know what communism is</quote> i'll expand on this for the sake of providing contribution where you provided none, Cesternino -Supporting regulation is not the same as supporting total state control of industry. -Most liberals I've seen do not support ending private property. Even if you pressed the ANTIFA dumbshits, they wouldn't want their big-ass properties owned by their rich parents to be made public property. ANTIFA are the closest thing to a proper communist group in the United States that's in any way prevalent and they're a bunch of rich suburban kids playing revolutionary because they got a little too butthurt over the election. That's your communist group, and they comprise, what? 3-4 thousand? The anti-Trump march was around 3-4 million and a few groups of a hundred ANTIFA thugs caused violence. At most 0.1% of a march likely mostly comprised of liberals. "REEEE Liberals fear mongering Russia." 5 seconds later "REEEEE commies!" good fucking god this country looks hopeless sometimes</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 5:27:58 AM #65:	Gojak_v3 posted... Bok_Choi posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. LOL Once again you have nothing to add so I won't bother with you anymore. It actually sounds like you don't know what yer talking about either so it's a waste of my time. Maybe you should think about how they are gonna fix a system where layoffs are based on seniority and not merit. In other words, like I said, the union gets in the way. You aren't gonna fix a system where you keep around bad teachers and layoff good ones just because they've been there longer. Last hired, first fired. Yeah dude no one who has read your posts ITT thinks you've been making good points. I can't believe Bok_Choi even argued with you for as long as he did. You clearly have some pretty horrible opinions and just generally don't know what you're talking about. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877291813] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Which isn't currently possible with the teachers union blocking meaningful changes. </quote> LOL</quote> Once again you have nothing to add so I won't bother with you anymore. It actually sounds like you don't know what yer talking about either so it's a waste of my time. Maybe you should think about how they are gonna fix a system where layoffs are based on seniority and not merit. In other words, like I said, the union gets in the way. You aren't gonna fix a system where you keep around bad teachers and layoff good ones just because they've been there longer. Last hired, first fired.</quote> Yeah dude no one who has read your posts ITT thinks you've been making good points. I can't believe Bok_Choi even argued with you for as long as he did. You clearly have some pretty horrible opinions and just generally don't know what you're talking about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
messhia_dark 04/16/17 5:33:25 AM #66:	All I've got to say, is that I know when I'm trying to convey my ideas, that people have individualistic perception and will choose to interpret and perceive as they seem fit. They will diagnose and understand with their environment and resources at hand. Which very much makes sense to me. I have very different intentions that dont come accross for the reason of what I assume is explaining myself the way I do. The way I'd like for people to interpret these thoughts will never go through exactly as interpreted because my perception of reality is much different. I come from a humble, learning, understanding, building upon, progressive standpoint, I am explaining to get positive criticism and feedback or the sort. Not to have an idea degrade my opinion or ideological standpoint. All in all, my way that I would like for your perception to interpret what I am saying isn't a given, it's a learned. I'll need to realize that because "this" is caught up in all the giggly bullshit of our communication. Its obviously misinterpreted, which is a natural phenomena of us as humans. Understand, laugh, hate what I said but I'll be content knowing I shared what I could to make you understand my standpoint. When input is presented in a progressive manner, I will accept it, anything but the sort will not be perceived as your intentions would've liked. Sigh, thats all I have to say concerning this. <cite>messhia_dark posted [p:877291908] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>All I've got to say, is that I know when I'm trying to convey my ideas, that people have individualistic perception and will choose to interpret and perceive as they seem fit. They will diagnose and understand with their environment and resources at hand. Which very much makes sense to me. I have very different intentions that dont come accross for the reason of what I assume is explaining myself the way I do. The way I'd like for people to interpret these thoughts will never go through exactly as interpreted because my perception of reality is much different. I come from a humble, learning, understanding, building upon, progressive standpoint, I am explaining to get positive criticism and feedback or the sort. Not to have an idea degrade my opinion or ideological standpoint. All in all, my way that I would like for your perception to interpret what I am saying isn't a given, it's a learned. I'll need to realize that because "this" is caught up in all the giggly bullshit of our communication. Its obviously misinterpreted, which is a natural phenomena of us as humans. Understand, laugh, hate what I said but I'll be content knowing I shared what I could to make you understand my standpoint. When input is presented in a progressive manner, I will accept it, anything but the sort will not be perceived as your intentions would've liked. Sigh, thats all I have to say concerning this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/16/17 5:33:55 AM #67:	Philoktetes posted... Seems that was voluntary for all involved, which liberals don't believe in. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:877291917] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Philoktetes posted...</cite> <quote></quote> Seems that was voluntary for all involved, which liberals don't believe in.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 5:46:33 AM #68:	MaverickXeo posted... Antifar posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't. Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877292125] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today</quote> The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't.</quote> Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/16/17 5:48:38 AM #69:	TommyG663513 posted... MaverickXeo posted... Antifar posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't. Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve. And that is exactly what I said. Unions protect the workers who should not be employed with the company. If the employer does not find you work right for them, they should let you go. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:877292154] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today</quote> The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't.</quote> Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve.</quote> And that is exactly what I said. Unions protect the workers who should not be employed with the company. If the employer does not find you work right for them, they should let you go.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 5:54:55 AM #70:	MaverickXeo posted... TommyG663513 posted... MaverickXeo posted... Antifar posted... Gojak_v3 posted... Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't. Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve. And that is exactly what I said. Unions protect the workers who should not be employed with the company. If the employer does not find you work right for them, they should let you go. I don't think you actually listened to anything I said at all. It's like your post comes nowhere close to addressing any of my points. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877292262] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gojak_v3 posted...</cite> <quote>Even those situation would be what a union is supposed to do. Like I said 80 years ago they were good when they fought against stuff like this. He ignored the fact I made that they are more or less political action groups today</quote> The article about auto workers notes that the unionized northern factories have fewer injuries to workers. Because unions do what you claim they don't.</quote> Probably because you can't do anything that might be a risk at a unionized job, and get in trouble for being a 'good' worker. If you do more than you are required to, you can get written up. Heck, I've worked places where two people are required to lift 2 or more 2x4s... or where you cant even hold/pass someone a tool you arent trained to operate. Unions hold back progress, and serve no purpose in modern society where labour laws exist. Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> This varies heavily between unions/jobs. You've severely misrepresented this. I've had the benefit of working two identical jobs except one was unionized and the other was not. The work conditions were vastly preferable at the unionized job. Like this wasn't even close. They blatantly try to fire people over very petty stuff at the non unionized job. They still constantly attempt to screw you at the union job, but the union allows you to have a recourse. Businesses are constantly just trying to screw with people. If you think there is any altruism to your average business then you are very naïve.</quote> And that is exactly what I said. Unions protect the workers who should not be employed with the company. If the employer does not find you work right for them, they should let you go.</quote> I don't think you actually listened to anything I said at all. It's like your post comes nowhere close to addressing any of my points.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightsasori 04/16/17 5:55:40 AM #71:	quality topic --- "Yare yare daze" ~ Jotaro Kujo "Children are pure, they know who's the strongest." ~ MaskDeSmith <cite>Lightsasori posted [p:877292275] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>quality topic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sphyx 04/16/17 5:56:40 AM #72:	So, there WAS enough to go around? --- You're so vain, You probably think this sig is about you. <cite>Sphyx posted [p:877292296] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>So, there WAS enough to go around?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
faizan_faizan 04/16/17 5:58:47 AM #73:	Lmao thread backfire --- Allergic to bull****. <cite>faizan_faizan posted [p:877292326] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Lmao thread backfire</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 04/16/17 6:03:42 AM #74:	liherals --- CE's Resident Scotsman. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z316/CeliaOfTheSky/Pinky0926.jpg <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:877292405] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>liherals</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AltonBrownFan 04/16/17 6:09:33 AM #75:	Imagine trying to argue that working in a death trap is preferable to working in a place with safety standards cause you imagine the employees operating under safe work conditions are only doing so cause they're lazy. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2 <cite>AltonBrownFan posted [p:877292508] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Imagine trying to argue that working in a death trap is preferable to working in a place with safety standards cause you imagine the employees operating under safe work conditions are only doing so cause they're lazy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bretonftw 04/16/17 6:15:44 AM #76:	MaverickXeo posted... Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. This is just a horrible ending to that post. You know how much the working class man (that the right loves to idolize when it suits them) was fucked over before unions were a thing? How there's even still cases like with coal miners being fucked over by their companies letting them get lung diseases? No, unions protect the most easily exploitable workers. --- "Christians cannot be violent, the new testament is completely against it" - darkphoenix181 <cite>bretonftw posted [p:877292611] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote> Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> This is just a horrible ending to that post. You know how much the working class man (that the right loves to idolize when it suits them) was fucked over before unions were a thing? How there's even still cases like with coal miners being fucked over by their companies letting them get lung diseases? No, unions protect the most easily exploitable workers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 04/16/17 6:16:59 AM #77:	Unions are necessary but I've seen first hand when they go too far. And the consequences aren't merely simple things like "boo hoo, so they have to take proper safety precautions, so what?" Example: Australian mining industry. An industry so bogged down by union protection that they can't even sell the iron they're digging out of the ground anymore on the global market because even an unskilled labourer is earning a 6 figure salary + medical + travel + food + accommodation + awards --- CE's Resident Scotsman. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z316/CeliaOfTheSky/Pinky0926.jpg <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:877292635] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Unions are necessary but I've seen first hand when they go too far. And the consequences aren't merely simple things like "boo hoo, so they have to take proper safety precautions, so what?" Example: Australian mining industry. An industry so bogged down by union protection that they can't even sell the iron they're digging out of the ground anymore on the global market because even an unskilled labourer is earning a 6 figure salary + medical + travel + food + accommodation + awards</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropicalwood 04/16/17 6:38:52 AM #78:	--- ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya <cite>Tropicalwood posted [p:877293063] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 6:44:44 AM #79:	pinky0926 posted... Unions are necessary but I've seen first hand when they go too far. And the consequences aren't merely simple things like "boo hoo, so they have to take proper safety precautions, so what?" Example: Australian mining industry. An industry so bogged down by union protection that they can't even sell the iron they're digging out of the ground anymore on the global market because even an unskilled labourer is earning a 6 figure salary + medical + travel + food + accommodation + awards I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877293174] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote>Unions are necessary but I've seen first hand when they go too far. And the consequences aren't merely simple things like "boo hoo, so they have to take proper safety precautions, so what?" Example: Australian mining industry. An industry so bogged down by union protection that they can't even sell the iron they're digging out of the ground anymore on the global market because even an unskilled labourer is earning a 6 figure salary + medical + travel + food + accommodation + awards</quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/16/17 6:45:17 AM #80:	bretonftw posted... MaverickXeo posted... Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified. This is just a horrible ending to that post. You know how much the working class man (that the right loves to idolize when it suits them) was fucked over before unions were a thing? How there's even still cases like with coal miners being fucked over by their companies letting them get lung diseases? No, unions protect the most easily exploitable workers. Before there were laws in place, that was true. Now, there is simply no need for unions. Ive worked at plenty of union and non-union jobs, and the real difference was the lack of work ethic in union workplaces, and the increased work ethic in jobs where there were no unions. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:877293182] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>bretonftw posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote> Unions only protect the lowest class of workers; the lazy and unqualified.</quote> This is just a horrible ending to that post. You know how much the working class man (that the right loves to idolize when it suits them) was fucked over before unions were a thing? How there's even still cases like with coal miners being fucked over by their companies letting them get lung diseases? No, unions protect the most easily exploitable workers.</quote> Before there were laws in place, that was true. Now, there is simply no need for unions. Ive worked at plenty of union and non-union jobs, and the real difference was the lack of work ethic in union workplaces, and the increased work ethic in jobs where there were no unions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 04/16/17 7:19:22 AM #81:	TommyG663513 posted... I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. It's a nationalised standard, so every company within Australia has to comply to these laws. It just means the price of ore has gone up astronomically, and is less viable globally now. The other consequence is that now Australia has a problem with companies subverting these laws by using overseas labour forces, or even foreign companies (usually Chinese) dominating the mining industry with more or less illegal workers. The payoff here is less Australians in the workforce. And no, unskilled worker is an actual term for someone who is not a skilled tradesman. This has nothing to do with being a bigot or looking down on people. It means your job is various helping hand tasks that don't require a license or apprenticeship or trade. Source: was an unskilled labourer in the Australian mining industry. Got paid 6 figures with all expenses covered to shift around bags of cement all day. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z316/CeliaOfTheSky/Pinky0926.jpg <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:877293824] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> It's a nationalised standard, so every company within Australia has to comply to these laws. It just means the price of ore has gone up astronomically, and is less viable globally now. The other consequence is that now Australia has a problem with companies subverting these laws by using overseas labour forces, or even foreign companies (usually Chinese) dominating the mining industry with more or less illegal workers. The payoff here is less Australians in the workforce. And no, unskilled worker is an actual term for someone who is not a skilled tradesman. This has nothing to do with being a bigot or looking down on people. It means your job is various helping hand tasks that don't require a license or apprenticeship or trade. Source: was an unskilled labourer in the Australian mining industry. Got paid 6 figures with all expenses covered to shift around bags of cement all day. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
do_ob_tpkillr 04/16/17 7:35:49 AM #82:	Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck. <cite>do_ob_tpkillr posted [p:877294175] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 04/16/17 7:37:45 AM #83:	do_ob_tpkillr posted... Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck. The joke here is that apparently all these people are friends and they're all invited to the same lunch. I can't imagine any conservative no matter how staunchly "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would turn down someone in that situation. In fact if I'm not mistaken conservatives are more charitable, statistically. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z316/CeliaOfTheSky/Pinky0926.jpg <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:877294216] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>do_ob_tpkillr posted...</cite> <quote>Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck.</quote> The joke here is that apparently all these people are friends and they're all invited to the same lunch. I can't imagine any conservative no matter how staunchly "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would turn down someone in that situation. In fact if I'm not mistaken conservatives are more charitable, statistically.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 7:53:12 AM #84:	pinky0926 posted... TommyG663513 posted... I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. It's a nationalised standard, so every company within Australia has to comply to these laws. It just means the price of ore has gone up astronomically, and is less viable globally now. The other consequence is that now Australia has a problem with companies subverting these laws by using overseas labour forces, or even foreign companies (usually Chinese) dominating the mining industry with more or less illegal workers. The payoff here is less Australians in the workforce. And no, unskilled worker is an actual term for someone who is not a skilled tradesman. This has nothing to do with being a bigot or looking down on people. It means your job is various helping hand tasks that don't require a license or apprenticeship or trade. Source: was an unskilled labourer in the Australian mining industry. Got paid 6 figures with all expenses covered to shift around bags of cement all day. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand. I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877294570] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> It's a nationalised standard, so every company within Australia has to comply to these laws. It just means the price of ore has gone up astronomically, and is less viable globally now. The other consequence is that now Australia has a problem with companies subverting these laws by using overseas labour forces, or even foreign companies (usually Chinese) dominating the mining industry with more or less illegal workers. The payoff here is less Australians in the workforce. And no, unskilled worker is an actual term for someone who is not a skilled tradesman. This has nothing to do with being a bigot or looking down on people. It means your job is various helping hand tasks that don't require a license or apprenticeship or trade. Source: was an unskilled labourer in the Australian mining industry. Got paid 6 figures with all expenses covered to shift around bags of cement all day. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand.</quote> I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pinky0926 04/16/17 7:58:23 AM #85:	TommyG663513 posted... I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor. I felt "unskilled worker" was a much better designation than what people actually called me on site: "Shitkicker". They called the cleaners "pigs". It's a rough old life. You're right about the unions but ultimately it's the economy and industry as a whole that loses in the end. And it already has begun to lose. If you exist in a global market place but your prices are not competitive globally and your labour is 300% more expensive than readily available labour from overseas, then market forces are going to correct it. --- CE's Resident Scotsman. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z316/CeliaOfTheSky/Pinky0926.jpg <cite>pinky0926 posted [p:877294689] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor.</quote> I felt "unskilled worker" was a much better designation than what people actually called me on site: "Shitkicker". They called the cleaners "pigs". It's a rough old life. You're right about the unions but ultimately it's the economy and industry as a whole that loses in the end. And it already has begun to lose. If you exist in a global market place but your prices are not competitive globally and your labour is 300% more expensive than readily available labour from overseas, then market forces are going to correct it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 7:58:32 AM #86:	pinky0926 posted... do_ob_tpkillr posted... Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck. The joke here is that apparently all these people are friends and they're all invited to the same lunch. I can't imagine any conservative no matter how staunchly "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would turn down someone in that situation. In fact if I'm not mistaken conservatives are more charitable, statistically. I believe the charitable stat mostly refers to the church going conservatives. I would also guess a lot of that money is going to the church of which they frequent. But this illustration being taken more literally would probably be followed by conservatives and liberals alike. Well that is until the 5th dinner when the frog has still contributed nothing and he no longer gets invited. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877294694] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>do_ob_tpkillr posted...</cite> <quote>Briefly browsed through the topic. I take it that I'm one of the minority who doesn't subscribe to this "free lunch" logic. To me, if the frog doesn't have stuff to add to the pot, then he better be the one ladling up the soup for the rest. Lend him a hoe, teach him gardening, sponsor him some seeds even. But he better come up with something by the fifth potluck.</quote> The joke here is that apparently all these people are friends and they're all invited to the same lunch. I can't imagine any conservative no matter how staunchly "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would turn down someone in that situation. In fact if I'm not mistaken conservatives are more charitable, statistically.</quote> I believe the charitable stat mostly refers to the church going conservatives. I would also guess a lot of that money is going to the church of which they frequent. But this illustration being taken more literally would probably be followed by conservatives and liberals alike. Well that is until the 5th dinner when the frog has still contributed nothing and he no longer gets invited.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 8:17:35 AM #87:	pinky0926 posted... TommyG663513 posted... I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor. I felt "unskilled worker" was a much better designation than what people actually called me on site: "Shitkicker". They called the cleaners "pigs". It's a rough old life. You're right about the unions but ultimately it's the economy and industry as a whole that loses in the end. And it already has begun to lose. If you exist in a global market place but your prices are not competitive globally and your labour is 300% more expensive than readily available labour from overseas, then market forces are going to correct it. Well fair point on the unskilled labor term. Though I guess it varies by workplace. I still think there should be another level of distinction for being able to handle such physical work that the vast majority of people cannot handle. And yes globalization is very much an issue. I mean, the real ideal is people at the top being fair to their workers and not greedy scum, but that won't ever change. There is always another country with bad labor laws which reduces the costs of their goods and then that effects the market and XYZ. This is basically why I'm looking into nursing with the hope of being a nurse practitioner, PA, or even a physician down the line. The healthcare system, while still very flawed, seems so much better than dealing with union vs. management or the lack of unions. I look at all of the old people at my work and just see how angry they are all the time and I can see that all rubbing off on me. But yeah nursing has plenty of other issues that don't make it sound nearly as rosy. I don't want to give the impression that I know everything about it. I'm certain to run in to more problems down the line. It's hard to find a good career path. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877295163] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'm well aware of what the term unskilled worker means. I just don't like its broad application and the potential connotations of the term. You are certainly being accurate through both your definition and usage of the term. I just feel the term is a bit undignified when applied to very physically demanding jobs and/or dangerous jobs. As far as people taking advantage of unions, I find that much preferable to the people at the top benefitting from the people at the bottom. It certainly isn't the best scenario as you would prefer some combination of merit AND seniority to win out, but that is what it is. The truth is that the logistics of making that happen are very complicated so by no means is there an easy solution. It seems like the reality is that there isn't much of a middle ground between unionized and non unionized labor.</quote> I felt "unskilled worker" was a much better designation than what people actually called me on site: "Shitkicker". They called the cleaners "pigs". It's a rough old life. You're right about the unions but ultimately it's the economy and industry as a whole that loses in the end. And it already has begun to lose. If you exist in a global market place but your prices are not competitive globally and your labour is 300% more expensive than readily available labour from overseas, then market forces are going to correct it.</quote> Well fair point on the unskilled labor term. Though I guess it varies by workplace. I still think there should be another level of distinction for being able to handle such physical work that the vast majority of people cannot handle. And yes globalization is very much an issue. I mean, the real ideal is people at the top being fair to their workers and not greedy scum, but that won't ever change. There is always another country with bad labor laws which reduces the costs of their goods and then that effects the market and XYZ. This is basically why I'm looking into nursing with the hope of being a nurse practitioner, PA, or even a physician down the line. The healthcare system, while still very flawed, seems so much better than dealing with union vs. management or the lack of unions. I look at all of the old people at my work and just see how angry they are all the time and I can see that all rubbing off on me. But yeah nursing has plenty of other issues that don't make it sound nearly as rosy. I don't want to give the impression that I know everything about it. I'm certain to run in to more problems down the line. It's hard to find a good career path.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smoke944 04/16/17 9:12:25 AM #88:	pinky0926 posted... TommyG663513 posted... I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand. That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCCEAjDU7U <cite>Smoke944 posted [p:877296539] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand.</quote> That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 11:13:36 AM #89:	Smoke944 posted... pinky0926 posted... TommyG663513 posted... I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand. That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable. Now we have CEOs doing much worse. Completely trying to screw over the low level worker so their kids children don't really have to work. It'd be nice if humanity wasn't so blatantly self interested and the fruits of labor could be spread evenly and fairly. The reality is that unions are the fairest thing we have now. CEOs still get to make millions, but perhaps not double digit millions. Then your average Joe can stretch out a workmen's comp claim for some extra dough and chill at home for a while. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877300539] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smoke944 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand.</quote> That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable.</quote> Now we have CEOs doing much worse. Completely trying to screw over the low level worker so their kids children don't really have to work. It'd be nice if humanity wasn't so blatantly self interested and the fruits of labor could be spread evenly and fairly. The reality is that unions are the fairest thing we have now. CEOs still get to make millions, but perhaps not double digit millions. Then your average Joe can stretch out a workmen's comp claim for some extra dough and chill at home for a while.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knuxnole 04/16/17 11:24:35 AM #90:	3rd_Best_Master posted... What's the issue here? Those freeloaders didn't deserve any! --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:877300982] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>3rd_Best_Master posted...</cite> <quote>What's the issue here?</quote> Those freeloaders didn't deserve any!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knuxnole 04/16/17 11:25:09 AM #91:	TommyG663513 posted... Smoke944 posted... pinky0926 posted... TommyG663513 posted... I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine. The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand. That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable. Now we have CEOs doing much worse. Completely trying to screw over the low level worker so their kids children don't really have to work. It'd be nice if humanity wasn't so blatantly self interested and the fruits of labor could be spread evenly and fairly. The reality is that unions are the fairest thing we have now. CEOs still get to make millions, but perhaps not double digit millions. Then your average Joe can stretch out a workmen's comp claim for some extra dough and chill at home for a while. Low level peons exist for a reason. --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:877301005] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Smoke944 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pinky0926 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd have to ask how the company is staying in business with such issues. The obvious answer would be that they are still making money or perhaps they are failing. I also take a bit of an issue with the term unskilled worker in tough manual labor jobs. It always seems like an insulting statement towards jobs that require you be in good physical shape. I mean we aren't talking about constructing a cheeseburger here. I guess its like comparing a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's to an actual chef. There is low level physical labor like working at UPS then there is working on a road construction crew or working in a mine. Like the term unskilled has way too broad of a definition. I just feel its a bit wrong to use the term unskilled worker to refer to jobs with fairly extreme physical demands and tough work conditions like working in a mine.</quote> The other thing I'll point out is that I saw first hand how many people go out of their way to abuse cushy union safety laws. I'm talking about guys who just refuse to work but keep claiming their injury compensation package despite having recovered months ago. This gets very, very expensive. I realise it's romantic to think of the working class man as a noble simpleton just putting food on the table for the family, but in this particular case there were a lot of crafty meatheads using this practise to keep up their bachelor lifestyle and second morgage for their resort home in Thailand.</quote> That is pretty reminiscent of the glory days of the United Auto Workers. Unskilled factory workers with a nice house, two nice cars, a lake house, and a boat. And they could get hammered or high at lunch because they knew they were untouchable.</quote> Now we have CEOs doing much worse. Completely trying to screw over the low level worker so their kids children don't really have to work. It'd be nice if humanity wasn't so blatantly self interested and the fruits of labor could be spread evenly and fairly. The reality is that unions are the fairest thing we have now. CEOs still get to make millions, but perhaps not double digit millions. Then your average Joe can stretch out a workmen's comp claim for some extra dough and chill at home for a while.</quote> Low level peons exist for a reason.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/16/17 11:27:34 AM #92:	knuxnole posted... Low level peons exist for a reason. What is that reason? --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:877301111] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>Low level peons exist for a reason.</quote> What is that reason?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 04/16/17 11:48:41 AM #93:	Antifar posted... knuxnole posted... Low level peons exist for a reason. What is that reason? To make those at the top a few million more --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:877302052] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>Low level peons exist for a reason.</quote> What is that reason?</quote> To make those at the top a few million more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/16/17 1:37:39 PM #94:	TommyG663513 posted... Antifar posted... knuxnole posted... Low level peons exist for a reason. What is that reason? To make those at the top a few million more If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. People who criticize the '1%' do not know how little their salaries matter to the low level employees' wages. The top employees deal with a lot more stress than those at the bottom, so its only fair they make more money for doing so. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:877307258] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>Low level peons exist for a reason.</quote> What is that reason?</quote> To make those at the top a few million more</quote> If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. People who criticize the '1%' do not know how little their salaries matter to the low level employees' wages. The top employees deal with a lot more stress than those at the bottom, so its only fair they make more money for doing so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AltonBrownFan 04/16/17 1:50:18 PM #95:	MaverickXeo posted... If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. That's pretty significant when those employees are barely functioning while living paycheck to paycheck. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2 <cite>AltonBrownFan posted [p:877307868] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. </quote> That's pretty significant when those employees are barely functioning while living paycheck to paycheck.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/16/17 1:51:08 PM #96:	AltonBrownFan posted... MaverickXeo posted... If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. That's pretty significant when those employees are barely functioning while living paycheck to paycheck. An extra $3 a year would not make a difference... A lot of these people who are 'barely functioning' have way more than people 20 or 30 years ago did. Between taking out loans for things they cannot afford, and buying more things they do not need, they are worse off. You do not need the newest cell phone, or a new car, but many people think that they do. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:877307912] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>AltonBrownFan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>If those at the top did not take a salary, the low level employees would only make another few dollars a year. </quote> That's pretty significant when those employees are barely functioning while living paycheck to paycheck.</quote> An extra $3 a year would not make a difference... A lot of these people who are 'barely functioning' have way more than people 20 or 30 years ago did. Between taking out loans for things they cannot afford, and buying more things they do not need, they are worse off. You do not need the newest cell phone, or a new car, but many people think that they do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 04/16/17 1:51:43 PM #97:	Axiom posted... Are you saying that non-liberals want children to starve. That's fucked up Well it is the truth . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgTxIVjEECE --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:877307946] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Axiom posted...</cite> <quote>Are you saying that non-liberals want children to starve. That's fucked up</quote> Well it is the truth . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgTxIVjEECE</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Microwaved_Eggs 04/16/17 3:06:07 PM #98:	That chicken dude fucked my wife --- No rights reserved. <cite>Microwaved_Eggs posted [p:877311811] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote>That chicken dude fucked my wife</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/16/17 3:18:42 PM #99:	cjsdowg posted... Axiom posted... Are you saying that non-liberals want children to starve. That's fucked up Well it is the truth . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgTxIVjEECE Federal block grants for state programs need to end. Now. If the fifty states can't afford it, it's fantasy to assume that all fifty states can. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:877312421] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Axiom posted...</cite> <quote>Are you saying that non-liberals want children to starve. That's fucked up</quote> Well it is the truth . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgTxIVjEECE</quote> Federal block grants for state programs need to end. Now. If the fifty states can't afford it, it's fantasy to assume that all fifty states can.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Waluigi7 04/16/17 3:25:29 PM #100:	Zero_Destroyer posted... Nomadic View posted... That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn. This is the biggest issue with Neocon logic. It requires antagonizing and strawmen to exist. How many times have people made the "X hard worker has his money stolen while lowlife benefits!" argument? It's not even an argument. It's bordering on a false dichotomy, using emotional ploys to make yourself look just. You'd think after arguing on message boards for years you might have analyzed some of the dumpster fire rhetoric you throw around, but I guess not. It's all based in the "Fuck you I've got mine" set of thinking and will create a villain in order to justify the mentality's existence. It's not even a matter of whether or not wealth redistribution is the correct avenue, honestly. Your post is just bad. It's a mess. It's illogical. It's poorly thought out. It contributes nothing. It's no different than liberals that throw emotional ploys on immigration. You have no ideological high ground on your opponents and no reason for more independent people (like me) to take you seriously. If you want economic conservatism is work, you're going to need to present real arguments for why it works using statistics and numbers and countries that have used ideas effectively, not garbage strawman arguments. I'm pretty sure Nomadic View is a troll. --- Reptile <cite>Waluigi7 posted [p:877312769] in this is li... [t:75242231]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>That's perfectly fine. A group of people that want to share what they have is fantastic. It's when you start taking shit away from people to give to others that people have a problem. The man that spends 14 hours a day hanging cable and working by the sweat of his brow is entitled to more than the boy that spends 14 hours a day playing Nintendo and looking at anime porn.</quote> This is the biggest issue with Neocon logic. It requires antagonizing and strawmen to exist. How many times have people made the "X hard worker has his money stolen while lowlife benefits!" argument? It's not even an argument. It's bordering on a false dichotomy, using emotional ploys to make yourself look just. You'd think after arguing on message boards for years you might have analyzed some of the dumpster fire rhetoric you throw around, but I guess not. It's all based in the "Fuck you I've got mine" set of thinking and will create a villain in order to justify the mentality's existence. It's not even a matter of whether or not wealth redistribution is the correct avenue, honestly. Your post is just bad. It's a mess. It's illogical. It's poorly thought out. It contributes nothing. It's no different than liberals that throw emotional ploys on immigration. You have no ideological high ground on your opponents and no reason for more independent people (like me) to take you seriously. If you want economic conservatism is work, you're going to need to present real arguments for why it works using statistics and numbers and countries that have used ideas effectively, not garbage strawman arguments.</quote> I'm pretty sure Nomadic View is a troll.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > this is literally how liberals think the world should work (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > this is literally how liberals think the world should work