I predict gas under $3 a gallon

[GG]

Do you really believe that or are you just being, um....PastaJoe?

 

Eh. Of course he is. It only took over a year to plan the Iraq invasion & get the troops in place. Evil Cheney will do it in a week. He has to do it before the elections and saddle the new administration with the new war. What else would Darth Vader do?

[Max Fischer]

No. You should indeed challenge a literal, seek and discuss a declarative statement. You must ask why a man repeats an utterance he read, you must ask why he applied it to a situation.

 

It doesn't matter if it was an exact quote - although I realize that that is no longer accommodated. That there seems to be no room for words uttered without strict, nibbling scrutiny being flung from various sources.

 

All is parsed to whatever end the parser wants, totally missing the thought the utterer meant.

 

By all means, declare victory for yourself.

 

And enjoy the future. The pesky big picture.

 

Hitler once said, "When there is doubt about your credibility simply remove the doubter." Or was that Stalin . . .? Daffy Duck?

[stuckincincy]

Do I believe the neo-cons want to make a military strike on Iran before they leave office and lose their chance, you bet. The question is whether Bush is smart enough to resist them after being burned by their push to invade Iraq.

 

What do you think the neo-libs will do, to improve their political position?

[Ramius]

Why? Should I have couched in PC and better said, "I have heard that...". I understand that captious response is the norm today.

 

See also Whitehead's small essay "Minds in a Groove".

 

The detection and appreciation of the big picture is waning. Sad.

 

You arent seriously saying that anyone can make up whatever bull sh-- they feel free to, and then the onus is on everyone else to prove them wrong?

[stuckincincy]

You arent seriously saying that anyone can make up whatever bull sh-- they feel free to, and then the onus is on everyone else to prove them wrong?

 

How did you extract this statement from my words?

 

 

Onus? Ever defended the awarding of an advanced degree? You will face a bunch of people who will gladly take on the onus of proving you wrong.

 

I remain astounded at how many people live their lives in a small literal world, and simply can't get the gist.

[Chilly]

No. You should indeed challenge a literal, seek and discuss a declarative statement. You must ask why a man repeats an utterance he read, you must ask why he applied it to a situation.

 

It doesn't matter if it was an exact quote - although I realize that that is no longer accommodated. That there seems to be no room for words uttered without strict, nibbling scrutiny being flung from various sources.

 

All is parsed to whatever end the parser wants, totally missing the thought the utterer meant.

 

By all means, declare victory for yourself.

 

And enjoy the future. The pesky big picture.

 

So the actual response is, "I purposefully mixed this up in an attempt to be deep on an internet message board"?

[Ramius]

How did you extract this statement from my words?

 

 

Onus? Ever defended the awarding of an advanced degree? You will face a bunch of people who will gladly take on the onus of proving you wrong.

 

I remain astounded at how many people live their lives in a small literal world, and simply can't get the gist.

 

Actually i am working on an advanced degree and have already had to go through 1 defense. And low and behold, when i made my statements, i had to back them up with fact when questioned.

 

I wonder how it would have gone if i took your approach when they questioned me, "well, i said it, therefore its true, so you must prove me wrong." I can guarantee you my profs would have laughed me out of the room.

[stuckincincy]

So the actual response is, "I purposefully mixed this up in an attempt to be deep on an internet message board"?

 

Your myopia is staggering. Goodbye and good luck.

[stuckincincy]

Actually i am working on an advanced degree and have already had to go through 1 defense. And low and behold, when i made my statements, i had to back them up with fact when questioned.

 

I wonder how it would have gone if i took your approach when they questioned me, "well, i said it, therefore its true, so you must prove me wrong." I can guarantee you my profs would have laughed me out of the room.

 

Repeating...your myopia is staggering. Ta.

[Fingon]

To be fair, the Walmart thing makes sense for the majority of its employees. The bill the democrats want to push through will remove the ability for there to be a secret ballot when voting whether to unionize or not. That means employees can be bullied into voting for unionization.

[Max Fischer]

Repeating...your myopia is staggering. Ta.

 

Not a good day for Big Guy.

[PromoTheRobot]

The bigger question is will Bush wait, or will he succumb to Cheney whispering in his ear to attack.

It depends if Obama is winning in the polls. The doomsday plan is go to war and suspend elections.

 

PTR

[PromoTheRobot]

Why is it BS? What's wrong with obtaining more oil? The BS about drilling in ANWAR or off our shores being an "environmental" problem is BS. It's an unflattering - and wrong - estimate of our citizens and out technology.

 

But it is certainly a voting bloc to be pandered to, the sappy young environmentalists inculcated since their entry into school- and witness Pelosi and Reid refusing to bring tapping our resources to the floor of Congress. Votes, votes, votes.

 

American oil company profits are happily taxed by the Feds and the States. They love those profits. Any increase fills revenue agencies' coffers, and of course, like all business taxes, they are passed along to the end user.

 

You might address the population's lust for cheap foreign goods - we buy them from the same folks who up global demand for oil, then blame politicians of any stripe, and they end up holding billions of US Treasury obligations. They hold us by the short hairs...why do you think President Bush visits the Olympics in Bejing?

 

You are old enough to remember the comic strip, "Pogo", and the words "We have met the enemy, and it is us".

Since you bring up offshore/ANWAR/etc drilling, I have a question. What is to prevent these oil companies from drilling this oil (technically our oil) and sell it to the Chinese or Indians because they'll pay more for it? After it's free enterprise, right? So is the issue drilling more oil to lower prices for Americans, or to sell our oil to foreigners?

 

PTR

[Dan]

You arent seriously saying that anyone can make up whatever bull sh-- they feel free to, and then the onus is on everyone else to prove them wrong?

Are you seriously asking that question? Because that is exactly what happens quite frequently. Half the stuff spewed and reiterated on this board is based on something some guy just made up and now its out there in the intrawebs and people read it and take it for fact. I spend a great deal of my professional life defending claims from people that have no knowledge whatsoever but readily claim I'm killing them.

[pBills]

Are saying ANWAR instead of ANWR? OH MY GOD LET THE FLOOD GATES OPEN!!! TEAR THEM APART!!!

[pBills]

To be fair, the Walmart thing makes sense for the majority of its employees. The bill the democrats want to push through will remove the ability for there to be a secret ballot when voting whether to unionize or not. That means employees can be bullied into voting for unionization.

 

 

 

 

COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!! Seriously read a bit more about the Employee Free Choice Act. It does not mean that employees can be bullied into FOR unionization. It helps to make sure that employers can not bully or use scare tactics to protect themselves from Unionization.

 

The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress (so obviously not just Dems involved), would level the playing field for workers and employers and help rebuild America’s middle class. It would restore workers’ freedom to choose a union by:

 

* Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.

* Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.

* Allowing employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.

 

 

And in regards to Wal-Mart's Anti-Union Policy:

 

Wal-Mart closes down stores and departments that unionize

 

• Wal-Mart closed its store in Jonquierre, Quebec in April 2005 after its employees received union certification. The store became the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America when 51 percent of the employees at the store signed union cards. [Washington Post, 4/14/05]

• In December 2005, the Quebec Labour Board ordered Wal-Mart to compensate former employees of its store in Jonquiere Quebec. The Board ruled that Wal-Mart had improperly closed the store in April 2005 in reprisal against unionized workers. [Personnel Today, 12/19/05]

• In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide. [Pan Demetrakakes, "Is Wal-Mart Wrapped in Union Phobia?" Food & Packaging 76 (August 1, 2003).]

 

 

Wal-Mart has issued "A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free,"

 

• This toolbox provides managers with lists of warning signs that workers might be organizing, including "frequent meetings at associates' homes" and "associates who are never seen together start talking or associating with each other." The "Toolbox" gives managers a hotline to call so that company specialists can respond rapidly and head off any attempt by employees to organize. [Wal-Mart, A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free at 20-21]

 

 

Wal-Mart is committed to an anti-union policy

 

• In the last few years, well over 100 unfair labor practice charges have been filed against Wal-Mart throughout the country, with 43 charges filed in 2002 alone.

• Since 1995, the U.S. government has been forced to issue at least 60 complaints against Wal-Mart at the National Labor Relations Board. [international Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Internationally Recognised Core Labour Standards in the United States: Report for the WTO General Council Review of the Trade Policies of the United States (Geneva, January 14-16, 2004)]

• Wal-Mart's labor law violations range from illegally firing workers who attempt to organize a union to unlawful surveillance, threats, and intimidation of employees who dare to speak out. ["Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart," A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/16/04]

 

And on top of that Wal-Mart is reported to have many of their "security cameras" scanning for union organization instead of what they are truly there for. So many violations against workers rights it's sad.

[Taro T]

COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!! Seriously read a bit more about the Employee Free Choice Act. It does not mean that employees can be bullied into FOR unionization. It helps to make sure that employers can not bully or use scare tactics to protect themselves from Unionization.

 

...

Wrong.

 

From the text of the bill:

 

6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

 

So, since unions can't get a majority of workers to vote for them in secret ballot elections, simply having a petition signed by a majority of employees will now force a company to unionize if this bill is passed in its present form. Gee, I'm certain that there would never be any intimidation or strong-arming tactics used to get people to sign the petitions, right?

[pBills]

Wrong.

 

From the text of the bill:

 

 

 

So, since unions can't get a majority of workers to vote for them in secret ballot elections, simply having a petition signed by a majority of employees will now force a company to unionize if this bill is passed in its present form. Gee, I'm certain that there would never be any intimidation or strong-arming tactics used to get people to sign the petitions, right?

 

 

 

Wow, you know so much about unions?? Do you work with them or for one? Here are some stats for you:

 

• Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns;

• 78 percent of private employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay they control;

• And even after workers successfully form a union, one-third of the time they are not able to get a contract.

 

The law will:

 

• Strengthen penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union;

• Bring in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a contract after three months;

• Establishes majority sign-up, meaning that if a majority of the employees sign union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a company must recognize the union.

 

Will the law eliminate secret ballots? No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.

 

 

I love how people say that the union strong-arms people into voting pro-union. Each and every organizing drive is heavily monitored by the NLRB. I have personally seen employer intimidations. From telling new U.S. Citizens (who do not know all of the laws yet) that if they vote for a union they will be deported. Employees that they will be fired immediately. Offer certain employees wage increases, special concessions, or benefits in order to keep the union out or to manipulate the vote. Threaten the loss of hours or premium shifts they have earned if they vote pro-union. Etc., etc., etc.

[GG]

Wrong.

 

From the text of the bill:

 

 

 

So, since unions can't get a majority of workers to vote for them in secret ballot elections, simply having a petition signed by a majority of employees will now force a company to unionize if this bill is passed in its present form. Gee, I'm certain that there would never be any intimidation or strong-arming tactics used to get people to sign the petitions, right?

 

I take it you've never engaged in a "debate" before about facts with your counterpart.

[pBills]

I take it you've never engaged in a "debate" before about facts with your counterpart.

 

 

Nice one. I guess I am completely wrong on this issue.