TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ... /crickets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I have never implied any sort of hierarchy. I'm curious as to where I've disparaged working people. Show me posts that refect this attitude when taken in context. You have to understand the logic here. Queen Nancy actually said that "we have to extend unemployment benefits to reduce unemployment". So that means the ones that are on unemployment are actually employed, or for all intense and purposes a working man. So, when you disparaged the "takers" you were actually complaining about the working man. That's not to mention his insinuations in posts #'s 105 & 111 in this thread hint that you are a racist and are homophobic. Edited November 28, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You have to understand the logic here. Queen Nancy actually said that "we have to extend unemployment benefits to reduce unemployment". So that means the ones that are on unemployment are actually employed, or for all intense and purposes a working man. So, when you disparaged the "takers" you were actually complaining about the working man. That's not to mention his insinuations in posts #'s 105 & 111 in this thread hint that you are a racist and are homophobic. I noticed that, but I'm going to give gringo a pass. I generally find him to be likeable. I think he was attempting humor in atleast one of those posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I have never implied any sort of hierarchy. I'm curious as to where I've disparaged working people. Show me posts that refect this attitude when taken in context. "To the CEO salary vs. labor dispute: It's a simple supply and demand situation. People who drive trucks, bake bread, and stand on assembly lines are 100% fungible. They could be replaced by a !@#$ing monkey, and aren't a value add to the company. They are essentially machine parts whose greatest contribution is being affordable, and showing up every day. In down economies they become even more replacable as the pool of fungible labor grows. On the other hand, CEOs who can rescue a large company from bankruptcy are few and far between, and the compensation package nessecary to attract these types of individuals must be competitive with other companies, and account for scarcity. The CEO is valuable and the laborer is not. End of story." -TYTT shockingly enough some people are so thin skinned that they are offended to be compared to !@#$ing monkeys or machine parts and to be told they are without value-weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I have never implied any sort of hierarchy. I'm curious as to where I've disparaged working people. Show me posts that refect this attitude when taken in context. I imagine that the reason you assume me to be a liar, is because you've never actually had a job where you weren't required to wear a name tag. You've never held a position where you weren't assigned various tasks to be performed under the watchful eye of some ineffectual middle-management type on a ridged time schedule. ...the contempt folks here have for people who earn more money that them, doing jobs they are completely dependant on, and are woefully unable to do themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) "To the CEO salary vs. labor dispute: It's a simple supply and demand situation. People who drive trucks, bake bread, and stand on assembly lines are 100% fungible. They could be replaced by a !@#$ing monkey, and aren't a value add to the company. They are essentially machine parts whose greatest contribution is being affordable, and showing up every day. In down economies they become even more replacable as the pool of fungible labor grows. On the other hand, CEOs who can rescue a large company from bankruptcy are few and far between, and the compensation package nessecary to attract these types of individuals must be competitive with other companies, and account for scarcity. The CEO is valuable and the laborer is not. End of story." -TYTT shockingly enough some people are so thin skinned that they are offended to be compared to !@#$ing monkeys or machine parts and to be told they are without value-weird. Your post is rather uninsightful, even for you. Labor understands it's basic fungibility, and how eminently replacable it is. I could go out into the street outside my office building right now, find any twenty people, and reasonably expect them to be able to be able to stand on an assembly line. There is a reason that labor unionizes, while professionals do not. Professionals, by and large, have unique non-fungible skill sets or educational backgrounds that set them apart from thier peers in some way, and make them employable. They problem solve, manage business to business relationships, allocate resources, ect. performing functions vital to the success of their businesses and are part of a much smaller hireing pool, giving them natural value from a supply/demand perspective. Professionals do not unionize because they have marketable skills as individuals. It it not disparaging to say things that are fundamentally and objectively true. It is, however, absolutely absurd to take offense at accepted reality. That's not disparaging to labor, you nitwit. Edited November 28, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) That's not disparaging to labor, you nitwit. I think it is. I think it implies a perceived hierarchy. These are statements in support of your central point... that you're better, more valuable, that your opinions carry more weight. Those people you refer to as fungible parts in the machine...their voices do not matter because they lack the special privelaged point of view that only you and a few other special people have. Edited November 28, 2012 by gringo starr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think it is. I think it implies a perceived hierarchy. These are statements in support of your central point... that you're better, more valuable, that your opinions carry more weight. Those people you refer to as fungible parts in the machine...their voices do not matter because they lack the special privelaged point of view that only you and a few other special people have. You think wrong then. Their voices do not matter, in a business sense, because they are not at all unique in their skill sets and are not a value add. This doesn't diminish them as people, it just means they are less valuable to a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 As "the working man" I want you to know how much I appreciate the patronizing pity I get from you guys. My only question is, how will the policies of your party benefit me and my fellow working men as we try to find better opportunities to improve our standards of living & better provide for our families? I think you should direct your question to TYTT. Maybe he can tell you how the Republican party, which thinks of you as a monkey, a tool, a part in a machine (in a business sense) wants to help you. They've recruited you (as a tool once again) to help them further their own agenda, which is not for the benefit of the working man, I assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ... First of all, I find it to be absolutely hilarious that you are equating being a "working man" with a subsegment of fungible labor, when the reality is that any of us who are currently unable to retire, and are dependant on our jobs to survive, are represented by that lable, laborers and professionals both. Secondly, given that reality, a rather large % of "working men" are not wholely fungible. Third, you have yet to address this point: "Labor understands it's basic fungibility, and how eminently replacable it is. I could go out into the street outside my office building right now, find any twenty people, and reasonably expect them to be able to be able to stand on an assembly line. There is a reason that labor unionizes, while professionals do not. Professionals, by and large, have unique non-fungible skill sets or educational backgrounds that set them apart from thier peers in some way, and make them employable. They problem solve, manage business to business relationships, allocate resources, ect. performing functions vital to the success of their businesses and are part of a much smaller hireing pool, giving them natural value from a supply/demand perspective. Professionals do not unionize because they have marketable skills as individuals." Rather, you have irrationally bristled at it. Explain how I am incorrect if you find it so appauling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think it is. I think it implies a perceived hierarchy. These are statements in support of your central point... that you're better, more valuable, that your opinions carry more weight. Those people you refer to as fungible parts in the machine...their voices do not matter because they lack the special privelaged point of view that only you and a few other special people have. Its not perceived. The business hierarchy is real, and thats a function of the most basic economic principle: supply and demand. You are conflating worth in a business sense with the value of human lives. One of these concepts is easily assessed. You may not like it, and it may make you uncomfortable, but the truth often does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you should direct your question to TYTT. Maybe he can tell you how the Republican party, which thinks of you as a monkey, a tool, a part in a machine (in a business sense) wants to help you. They've recruited you (as a tool once again) to help them further their own agenda, which is not for the benefit of the working man, I assure you. So, you think it's the Republican party that thinks Rob is a monkey? I guess the Democrat party thinks of him as a tool, eh? When you have idiots as the leaders of the Democrats who say things like the following, you might want to be careful what you accuse others of. "We have to pass it to see what's in it". "Natural gas is not a fossil fuel". "Wouldn't Guam be in danger of tipping over"? "57 states". "Here in Asia", while he was in Hawaii. Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So, you think it's the Republican party that thinks Rob is a monkey? I guess the Democrat party thinks of him as a tool, eh? When you have idiots as the leaders of the Democrats who say things like the following, you might want to be careful what you accuse others of. "We have to pass it to see what's in it". "Natural gas is not a fossil fuel". "Wouldn't Guam be in danger of tipping over"? "57 states". "Here in Asia", while he was in Hawaii. Shall I go on? If you wanna make a list of dumb things politicians say, we could fill 20 pages in a new thread. Are you suggesting that one party has a monopoly on idiotic statements? Do I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey? Pretty much, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 If you wanna make a list of dumb things politicians say, we could fill 20 pages in a new thread. Are you suggesting that one party has a monopoly on idiotic statements? Do I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey? Pretty much, yes. Neither parties are immune to saying dumb things, but the Dems have far and away, the lead. What makes you think that the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Shouldn't you be out hunting Vietnamese catfish or something? No. My job is to let them through! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Neither parties are immune to saying dumb things, but the Dems have far and away, the lead. Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Quayle, Bush2, Palin, Mourdock, Akin, Walsh, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum. I'll be very generous and say that both sides say dumb crap. Why I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey: Like TTYT said, he's fungible. No value added. Disposable. If a cheaper alternative is available, take it. That's the corporate mentality. People are raw material. Rob is a tool, a part in the machine. The most important thing the machine makes is wealth for the people at the top. I believe that the Republican party does not have Rob's interest at heart. They'd send his job overseas in a second. This is a philosophical difference and I know you will always disagree. All the rhetoric about job creators. It boils down to supply side economics (aka, Reaganomics, aka trickle-down theory). It's been disproven historically. All that kind of system leads to is a dangerous wealth disparity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you should direct your question to TYTT. Maybe he can tell you how the Republican party, which thinks of you as a monkey, a tool, a part in a machine (in a business sense) wants to help you. They've recruited you (as a tool once again) to help them further their own agenda, which is not for the benefit of the working man, I assure you. I think this is a cop out. It doesn't explain why I, as "the working man", would benefit from liberal policies as opposed to conservative ones. As to whether I'm viewed as a monkey, I can't worry about that. I'm concerned with what I can do to improve my situation, not whether a politician wants to pat me on my head & tell me I'm special too & pretend that my job is more important than it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Quayle, Bush2, Palin, Mourdock, Akin, Walsh, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum. I'll be very generous and say that both sides say dumb crap. Why I think the Republican party thinks Rob is a monkey: Like TTYT said, he's fungible. No value added. Disposable. If a cheaper alternative is available, take it. That's the corporate mentality. People are raw material. Rob is a tool, a part in the machine. The most important thing the machine makes is wealth for the people at the top. I believe that the Republican party does not have Rob's interest at heart. They'd send his job overseas in a second. This is a philosophical difference and I know you will always disagree. All the rhetoric about job creators. It boils down to supply side economics (aka, Reaganomics, aka trickle-down theory). It's been disproven historically. All that kind of system leads to is a dangerous wealth disparity. Why don't you provide some actual quotes? Spelling "potato" wrong isn't quite as serious as the Speaker of the House at the time claiming over and over that natural gas is not a fossil fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Why don't you provide some actual quotes? Spelling "potato" wrong isn't quite as serious as the Speaker of the House at the time claiming over and over that natural gas is not a fossil fuel. Which isn't as bad as a serving member of the House Science Committee making a complete mockery of the female reproductive process. Come on, 3rd. There are loonies in every party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Which isn't as bad as a serving member of the House Science Committee making a complete mockery of the female reproductive process. Come on, 3rd. There are loonies in every party. To be fair, scientists don't always have much experience with the female reproductive system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts