Discussions on sensitive and sometimes controversial subjects. PLAY NICE!!!!!
You do not have enough Respect Points to post in this topic.
[_strat_] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:38:48 AM
Well, the boob argument... Doesnt the law have something to say about it? I mean, that example you gave, is an example of sexual abuse. Does the union have the right to defend that? Worse, does the union have the right to defend a worker that came to work with a gun and shot a couple of his co-workers?
Not to mention one thing... If you commit a crime anywhere, and get busted, you still have a right to a lawyer, a right to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusal punishment, ect... There is nothing inherently wrong with that - except that is the domain of the judicial system and the police, not unions.
Now, I guess one could raise a point that unions are to big. IDK about that. We dont really have companies that would be so big (by the number of employees) that size would be a serious problem. Besides, most unions are very small, and are only loosely connected into an all-Slovene union alliance. I guess you would have a much harder time maintaining such a system (size issues), but for us it works as well as it possibly can.
Now, wages... Of course its better to get something, but... In this case, it is a matter of principals. The worker behind the assembly line didnt start the crisis. The white collars did. Now, we had a long period of utopic economic growth, combined with an unprecedented assault on labour rights, and a realistic lowering of wages (althought they went up nominaly). In short, the white collars privatised the profits. Now, they wont to socialise the debts, by wage cuts, layoffs ect... If the US, Canadian, Slovenian, or any other government wants to interfere, it better go after the white collars first.
The middle class is disapearing. Maybe not at your end yet, over here its the everyday reality, and Im sure that if this shit goes on for much longer, it will reach you too.
Just to be different I will agree with you.Unions have to be changed.But, before we get to that, is their role to oppose wage cuts, or to work to get the best they can for the majority of the workers?Unions are a business, and to stay competitive they have to grow, become larger, gain relative strength in order to both attract new members, spend money on convincing new plants and companies (more so their workers) and such of the benefits of membership.But unions are also hamstrung in some ways by rules and laws that govern them.For instance they have a duty to represent any member who asks for their help.So, union member Johnny walks past Union member Suzie, and since they are alone, he grabs her boobs.Now, that’s wrong, she complains, he is fired.The union has to represent him, but in doing that they are opposing Suzie, and if somehow they win, then she has a case against not plant management, but the union.It happens.
With the wage case, is it better to get something or nothing?Chrysler is broke.The US and Canadian govts told them to get wages in line with Toyota and Honda, the US govt also said, find a buyer, or shut it down.Now, that could have been a bluff, since they gave them a bit more cash today, but if they couldn’t find a buyer, which Fiat was the only interested party anyone heard of they were going into chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is closing down and liquidating.In chapter 7, all the workers would lose their jobs, and not get severance, as I understand it.If someone bought the plants, they could negotiate a deal as they saw fit, or move the equipment.
Changes that would make a union more effective would be to make them smaller.Have a separate union at every plant for instance.After all shouldn’t workers at a more profitable plant, building more complex cars, in an area with a higher cost of living get paid more?This has its drawbacks though, the strike threat is reduced, and the companies wouldn’t like constantly negotiating new wage rates and contracts at hundreds of plants.That would also mean that each union would need an executive group, admin staff, negotiators, offices etc, which costs the workers more.No win situation.
Average...Your approaching this concept like it’s a zero sum.If we say that current incomes are averaged in some form of a bell curve, (it’s not a perfect bell curve, but it is some form of it) and say the average is 50,000.If you legislate that everyone earns the same, say the govt were to take in all the money, pool it and distribute it (which is too simplistic as you need a paycheck before year end to eat, but just say).The average income would be nowhere near 50,000.The more money is in circulation the more money there is to end up shared around.As more money is spent, by the rich first, as the poor spend all they have out of necessity…. The more money the poor have, the more job options there are, the more jobs pay.I don’t agree that the middle class is shrinking, it’s changing.For a while the middle class lived way beyond their means, and I think the current economic situation is a result of that, at least in part.Now the middle class is living (hopefully) within their means, they have less, but by less, they have a couple of PC’s, cable TV, a TV for every family member, a bedroom for each kid plus a spare.In the 50’s, that didn’t happen, nor the 60’s 70’s or early 80’s.
By limiting the number of people who are high earners, you limit the number of winners.Nothing will ever be fair; the human condition does not permit it.We are all (or almost all) selfish bastards at heart.
[Head banger] Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:20:33 PM
Just to be different I will agree with you.Unions have to be changed.But, before we get to that, is their role to oppose wage cuts, or to work to get the best they can for the majority of the workers?Unions are a business, and to stay competitive they have to grow, become larger, gain relative strength in order to both attract new members, spend money on convincing new plants and companies (more so their workers) and such of the benefits of membership.But unions are also hamstrung in some ways by rules and laws that govern them.For instance they have a duty to represent any member who asks for their help.So, union member Johnny walks past Union member Suzie, and since they are alone, he grabs her boobs.Now, that’s wrong, she complains, he is fired.The union has to represent him, but in doing that they are opposing Suzie, and if somehow they win, then she has a case against not plant management, but the union.It happens.
With the wage case, is it better to get something or nothing?Chrysler is broke.The US and Canadian govts told them to get wages in line with Toyota and Honda, the US govt also said, find a buyer, or shut it down.Now, that could have been a bluff, since they gave them a bit more cash today, but if they couldn’t find a buyer, which Fiat was the only interested party anyone heard of they were going into chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is closing down and liquidating.In chapter 7, all the workers would lose their jobs, and not get severance, as I understand it.If someone bought the plants, they could negotiate a deal as they saw fit, or move the equipment.
Changes that would make a union more effective would be to make them smaller.Have a separate union at every plant for instance.After all shouldn’t workers at a more profitable plant, building more complex cars, in an area with a higher cost of living get paid more?This has its drawbacks though, the strike threat is reduced, and the companies wouldn’t like constantly negotiating new wage rates and contracts at hundreds of plants.That would also mean that each union would need an executive group, admin staff, negotiators, offices etc, which costs the workers more.No win situation.
Average...Your approaching this concept like it’s a zero sum.If we say that current incomes are averaged in some form of a bell curve, (it’s not a perfect bell curve, but it is some form of it) and say the average is 50,000.If you legislate that everyone earns the same, say the govt were to take in all the money, pool it and distribute it (which is too simplistic as you need a paycheck before year end to eat, but just say).The average income would be nowhere near 50,000.The more money is in circulation the more money there is to end up shared around.As more money is spent, by the rich first, as the poor spend all they have out of necessity…. The more money the poor have, the more job options there are, the more jobs pay.I don’t agree that the middle class is shrinking, it’s changing.For a while the middle class lived way beyond their means, and I think the current economic situation is a result of that, at least in part.Now the middle class is living (hopefully) within their means, they have less, but by less, they have a couple of PC’s, cable TV, a TV for every family member, a bedroom for each kid plus a spare.In the 50’s, that didn’t happen, nor the 60’s 70’s or early 80’s.
By limiting the number of people who are high earners, you limit the number of winners.Nothing will ever be fair; the human condition does not permit it.We are all (or almost all) selfish bastards at heart.
[_strat_] Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:55:09 AM
In that case, we are on the issue of unions again. Now, while it may be true (at least at your end) that unions are operated like businesses (and that is wrong, and has to be changed), they are still doing their primary role, in the case of Chrysler, it is opposing wage cuts.
Now, average... Everyone cannot be above it (mathemathicaly impossible), but, there are more ways we can approach this. Should we have a society in which the majority is average (by material wealth), ot should we have a society where "average" is just a calculation between the insanely rich minority and the piss-poor majority (which is the direction that we are all going to now), and where the "average" and the "middle class" dont really exist, or are so few that are hardly worth mentioning?
Now, this argument that poverty and hardship will make people aspire for better is true to a certain extent... But then we can also raise the issue of crime, depression and stress that come from a society where people have to compete for everything. That, and of course... There are only so much winners, the rest are bound to lose, no matter what they do. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, April 20, 2009 7:28:16 AM)
Head banger wrote:
well, I am going to disagree with you twice.
first, unions are not looking out for the worker, they are a business and are looking out for themselfs. their marketing campain is that they help the worker, just like red bull claims to give you wings (restore mental and physical alertness). both contain half truths and outright lies. Unions used to exist to help the worker, now they make a show of it, but like any big business, the heads are living off the lower workers, which I know you hate.
secondly, you cant have everyone above average. its imposible using conventional math. some will be higher, some lower. costs will trend to the average, but will vary with location. so a nice area, will cost more than a cheap area, meaning that min wage will be hard to live on. that gives people a reason to work to get above that.
also, we dont all use the things the companies pay for, but it is an insurance scheme. I have never used employment insurance, and dont forsee using it any time soon. but I pay into it.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for theworker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
Head banger wrote:
I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
Head banger wrote:
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
first, unions are not looking out for the worker, they are a business and are looking out for themselfs. their marketing campain is that they help the worker, just like red bull claims to give you wings (restore mental and physical alertness). both contain half truths and outright lies. Unions used to exist to help the worker, now they make a show of it, but like any big business, the heads are living off the lower workers, which I know you hate.
secondly, you cant have everyone above average. its imposible using conventional math. some will be higher, some lower. costs will trend to the average, but will vary with location. so a nice area, will cost more than a cheap area, meaning that min wage will be hard to live on. that gives people a reason to work to get above that.
also, we dont all use the things the companies pay for, but it is an insurance scheme. I have never used employment insurance, and dont forsee using it any time soon. but I pay into it. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:42:44 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for theworker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
Head banger wrote:
I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
Head banger wrote:
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for theworker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 4:15:37 PM)
Head banger wrote:
I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
Head banger wrote:
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
Head banger wrote:
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:18:56 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
Head banger wrote:
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:11:44 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:08:12 PM)
Head banger wrote:
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation.... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 12:53:01 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 10:05:31 AM)
Head banger wrote:
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 9:48:28 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Head banger wrote:
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 3:04:40 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:34:24 PM)
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
[Head banger] Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:09:02 PM
unions need to go away [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:43:57 PM)
Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote:
And I thought the jerks running baseball's and hockey's unions were self-centered, uncaring, stupid and extremely short-sighted. Oh wait...they are, just not as badly as the UAW. Fucking morons.
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:43:57 PM
And I thought the jerks running baseball's and hockey's unions were self-centered, uncaring, stupid and extremely short-sighted. Oh wait...they are, just not as badly as the UAW. Fucking morons. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:34:24 PM)
Head banger wrote:
unions are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. good ridance chrysler. best of luck GM
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:13:06 AM
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:03:55 AM
Silly rabbit! Bailout only goes to giant financial institutions that operate recklessly like Citibank and AIG. Middle Class America ain't getting shit. Smooth move not keeping the Middle Class tax cuts that Bush had in place. O-boobie strikes again!
Poor Chrysler, then. I hope they will forgive me for not crying myself to sleep over this. The separate firm, Chrysler, or whoever owes the workers that money, should pay up. Until then, it seems that what theyre doing now is the only thing that will get them anywhere.
well, they claim they are owed that. but they are not owed that by chrysler, they work for a separate firm. chrysler contracts who they chose.
_strat_ wrote:
Well... They are on Chrysler property, they have Chryslers tools, and they are being owed a total of 1,7 million dollars. Trade off. I hope they get whats theirs. Violence seems to be the only thing that separates the greedy from their money - even if that money isnt really theirs to begin with.
good example here of long term planning.
wonder if they left open a side door for food delivery?
wonder also why anyone would think that locking out the boss will make him want to negotiate with you???
[Head banger] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:48:15 PM
well, they claim they are owed that. but they are not owed that by chrysler, they work for a separate firm. chrysler contracts who they chose. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:27:02 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well... They are on Chrysler property, they have Chryslers tools, and they are being owed a total of 1,7 million dollars. Trade off. I hope they get whats theirs. Violence seems to be the only thing that separates the greedy from their money - even if that money isnt really theirs to begin with.
good example here of long term planning.
wonder if they left open a side door for food delivery?
wonder also why anyone would think that locking out the boss will make him want to negotiate with you???
[_strat_] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:27:02 PM
Well... They are on Chrysler property, they have Chryslers tools, and they are being owed a total of 1,7 million dollars. Trade off. I hope they get whats theirs. Violence seems to be the only thing that separates the greedy from their money - even if that money isnt really theirs to begin with. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:54:29 PM)
good example here of long term planning.
wonder if they left open a side door for food delivery?
wonder also why anyone would think that locking out the boss will make him want to negotiate with you???
[Head banger] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:54:29 PM
good example here of long term planning.
wonder if they left open a side door for food delivery?
wonder also why anyone would think that locking out the boss will make him want to negotiate with you???
[_strat_] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:28:48 AM
The pope dreams about his altar boys. He read it in a book. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:35:45 AM)
Head banger wrote:
right. I meant to say we dont disagree.
the pope didnt write it, he was told it in a dream. HA!
_strat_ wrote:
You mean we do agree on something?
In any case, this one is so fucking obvious, that Im surprised even Oprah fell for it (since she seems to fall for any dumb new age shit out there - then again she could have gotten a "compensation" for wawing that shit on her show). That "suppressed knowledge" reminds me of the Da Vinci code, and the "Ancient secret" I wont even comment. Its marketing, nothing else.
"You can get everything you want, if you only believe"... Did the pope write this shit?!?!
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[_strat_] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:27:58 AM
I completly agree. But, I dont see where the cosmos (whatever the fuck that means) or spirituality come into this. If you want to do something, achieve somthing, get something, you kinda have to think that its possible before you try it, or else whats the point?
Now, I havent read the book or seen the DVD - and I dont mean to, either - but from what I saw, I dont think ill be missing much. Certainly not any bullshit that I havent heard before. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:47:01 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh MAN! Brutal, strat! You know, I have discussed some of that before. The Law of Attraction is very real as far as I am concerned. When Oprah or these other "New Age Thinkers" you describe talk about "getting what you want by believing", they are really referring to Attraction. Now, that whole thing has been twisted by certain people. You see, I do believe you can influence your life through believing you can. The Law of Attraction states that all things of common bond attract one another. Positive thought attracts the same. BUT, it is like any other physical law, it has a true foundation. You cannot THINK yourself into making your face become Brad Pitt's. Doesn't work like that. Just as you cannot use the Law or Gravity and say that you can believe you will increase it to pull yourself through the earth's crust! Doesn't work like that.
You can attract certain things into your life through the Law of Attraction. "As a man thinketh, so he is."
_strat_ wrote:
You mean we do agree on something?
In any case, this one is so fucking obvious, that Im surprised even Oprah fell for it (since she seems to fall for any dumb new age shit out there - then again she could have gotten a "compensation" for wawing that shit on her show). That "suppressed knowledge" reminds me of the Da Vinci code, and the "Ancient secret" I wont even comment. Its marketing, nothing else.
"You can get everything you want, if you only believe"... Did the pope write this shit?!?!
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[Head banger] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:35:45 AM
right. I meant to say we dont disagree.
the pope didnt write it, he was told it in a dream. HA! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:27:00 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
You mean we do agree on something?
In any case, this one is so fucking obvious, that Im surprised even Oprah fell for it (since she seems to fall for any dumb new age shit out there - then again she could have gotten a "compensation" for wawing that shit on her show). That "suppressed knowledge" reminds me of the Da Vinci code, and the "Ancient secret" I wont even comment. Its marketing, nothing else.
"You can get everything you want, if you only believe"... Did the pope write this shit?!?!
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[Deep Freeze] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:47:01 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh MAN! Brutal, strat! You know, I have discussed some of that before. The Law of Attraction is very real as far as I am concerned. When Oprah or these other "New Age Thinkers" you describe talk about "getting what you want by believing", they are really referring to Attraction. Now, that whole thing has been twisted by certain people. You see, I do believe you can influence your life through believing you can. The Law of Attraction states that all things of common bond attract one another. Positive thought attracts the same. BUT, it is like any other physical law, it has a true foundation. You cannot THINK yourself into making your face become Brad Pitt's. Doesn't work like that. Just as you cannot use the Law or Gravity and say that you can believe you will increase it to pull yourself through the earth's crust! Doesn't work like that.
You can attract certain things into your life through the Law of Attraction. "As a man thinketh, so he is." [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:27:00 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
You mean we do agree on something?
In any case, this one is so fucking obvious, that Im surprised even Oprah fell for it (since she seems to fall for any dumb new age shit out there - then again she could have gotten a "compensation" for wawing that shit on her show). That "suppressed knowledge" reminds me of the Da Vinci code, and the "Ancient secret" I wont even comment. Its marketing, nothing else.
"You can get everything you want, if you only believe"... Did the pope write this shit?!?!
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[_strat_] Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:16:27 AM
Lol... It never occured to me that Michael Palin and the famous hockey mom are so connected! Cant imagine her singing "Always look on the birght side of life"... More like "Let the motherfucker burn".
Oh man, how come no one told me that John Cleese and I share the same thoughts about Palin (NOT Michael)? Too good.
[guidogodoy] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:22:31 PM
Oh man, how come no one told me that John Cleese and I share the same thoughts about Palin (NOT Michael)? Too good.
[_strat_] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:27:00 AM
You mean we do agree on something?
In any case, this one is so fucking obvious, that Im surprised even Oprah fell for it (since she seems to fall for any dumb new age shit out there - then again she could have gotten a "compensation" for wawing that shit on her show). That "suppressed knowledge" reminds me of the Da Vinci code, and the "Ancient secret" I wont even comment. Its marketing, nothing else.
"You can get everything you want, if you only believe"... Did the pope write this shit?!?! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:15:09 AM)
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:19:22 AM
I wish I may...I wish I might...It's time to eat...I'm outta sight! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:15:09 AM)
Head banger wrote:
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[Head banger] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:15:09 AM
see strat, we dont agree with everything in this thread!!! well said [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:39:27 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[_strat_] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:21:10 AM
Yup. I agree. Except for the faith in god, since Im an atheist.
But in any case, what this bullshit suggests is pretty much that we can just wish for things, and they will happen. Thats, if I got it right, anyway. In any case, thats bullshit. I wish to get into college this summer. I cant wish myself there. I have to study and prepare myself for the entry exams. Just wishing wont do me much good. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:14:42 AM)
Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote:
I second that! I never bothered with bullshit like self-help books. My help comes from my friends and family. My faith is in God and the general believe that we are all good people and can do anything we want - given the right method in which to succeed and the drive to attain what we want.
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:14:42 AM
I second that! I never bothered with bullshit like self-help books. My help comes from my friends and family. My faith is in God and the general believe that we are all good people and can do anything we want - given the right method in which to succeed and the drive to attain what we want. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:39:27 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[_strat_] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:39:27 AM
Bullshit. "The secret will give you everything you want"?!?!?! DVDs, books, films? Spirituality? "Believe, and things will just happen"?!?!?! Seriously, what kind of a bullshit is that? "The secret made me realise I want a new house in 6 months!" Well, whoopdee-fucking-doo. I want a house of my own too, but I didnt need no bullshit DVD to figure that out!
And all packed in that "ancient secret" package, and "suppressed knowledge"... Someone is going to make a pile of cash, and a whole lot of people will be disapointed. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
THE SECRETOur company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:40:57 AM
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:24:20 AM
Robert Proctor (The Secret)
a. Hammerstein
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, March 16, 2009 11:20:39 PM
THE SECRET
Our company is introducing this program into our daily routine. It's optional training, but it is encouraged and advised. Especially amongst the older employers and managers (myself being both.) I've always been leery of 'snake-oil salesmen' and 'positive thinking gurus.' And I'm very wary of 'New Age' preachers and speakers that speak of goals and success without including GOD into the equation. So when I see something like this, part of me wants to run. While the other part is seduced by the attraction. Either way, it cannot hurt to try. But can it? Is the spiritual trade-off worth the price and result?
a. Hammerstein
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Monday, March 16, 2009 5:57:37 AM
A little??? It looks like something from Conservapedia!
In any case, politicians could (and some actualy do) think, but much of that stuff is arbitrary - some may decide something is good, some may not. We would still be at the same problem. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 27, 2009 7:17:31 AM)
Head banger wrote:
well... on that list (thought it might be biased a little) it says that all the right wing stuff is good.
the real solution is for policians (because lets face it, they dont care what we think) to actualy think, and do the right thing.
good luck with that one.
Bev wrote:
Well, there you have it. There is something fundamentally wrong with being either one or the other. It makes more sense to apply combinations of either dependent upon the circumstance. Now that the problem has been identified, what's the solution.
Head banger wrote:
The Right-Left Political Matrix
Posted 2/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Political Left Believes:
-That the state knows better than its citizens what is in their best interests;
-In the primacy of the collective over the individual;
-That individual human lives can, and if necessary, must, be sacrificed for the “greater good” as defined by the state;
-That equality is more important than freedom (and that in the prologue to the perfect state, some individuals will be more equal than others);
-That political freedom is a myth, that law is useful only in so far as it advances the interests of the state, that private property is theft, and that public ownership of the means of production is the only way to ensure economic prosperity and equality for all;
-That the only freedom worthy of pursuit (by the state) is the freedom from physical wants for every citizen;
-That in the pursuit of economic progress (as defined by the state), the state is justified in using any measure to attain its goals (whatever its impact on individual welfare or individual lives);
-That the state should actively intervene in all spheres of life in pursuit of state-determined social and economic goals;
-That all economic and political activity should be controlled by the state;
-That social and environmental factors are the prime determinants of individual behavior;
-That truth and morality never were and can never be absolute, except in so far and for so long as they serve the interests of the state; otherwise, they are infinitely malleable;
-That the state is better suited to allocating scarce resources than the free market, including making decisions as to aggregate production and consumption and the setting of prices and wages;
-That the state has the first claim to its citizens’ income and wealth (i.e. what’s yours is theirs);
-That money (in private hands) is the root of all evil;
-That radical, revolutionary and, if necessary, brutally violent change is often the only way to transition from one political, social and/or economic system to another.
The Political Right Believes:
-That individuals can be trusted to act in their own best interests;
-That the individual is, and individual rights are, the cornerstone of civilized society;
-That every human life has value and merits equal protection under the law;
-That the measure of a civilized society is the degree of freedom accorded every individual within it;
-That political and economic freedom are predicated on the rule of law and the right to private property;
-That individual freedoms must include freedom of speech and expression (including freedom of the press), religion, assembly and mobility;
-That the surest path to economic progress is freedom of opportunity and the right of individuals to capture the rewards flowing from the risks they have taken;
-That pro-active discrimination by the state is rarely, if ever, justified in the interests of social and economic justice, however defined;
-That the best government is that which governs least;
-That individuals are accountable for their own actions;
-That truth has an objective basis and that moral principles are absolute;
-That, in most circumstances, the free market is the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources;
-That your income and wealth belong to you and that you are the best judge of how they should be invested or spent (i.e. what’s yours is yours);
-That profit is the just reward for economically and socially beneficial behavior;
-That social, political and economic change is best undertaken incrementally.
***
This left-right matrix was provided by a great friend of the program, VOLYA, which means Will and Liberty in both Russian and Ukrainian.
[Head banger] Friday, February 27, 2009 7:24:50 AM
castro?
nope, he did lots of that. humm, dont tell me, let me guess. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 27, 2009 7:18:08 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Oh, well... I guess ill never learn, eh? In any case, I know ONE leftwinger who will become a murderer, if rightwingers keep on winding him up...
Head banger wrote:
I knew that. my leftwingers are the only killers was a joke
_strat_ wrote:
No, lol, oj is a typo, when my finger was looking for the "k" but found "j" instead. The guy OJ may be a killer, but he is funny as hell too.
Killing people does mean that they are deprieved of rights... But killing people is not restricted to leftists. Hitler was a far-right winger, killed millions. So did the right winged Catholic church + the eastern Orthodox churches who killed a whole lotta people, and ruled Europe through an oppresive feudalist system that lasted for over a millenium. So much for freedom.
In any case, I would say that the only conclusion that makes sense is that politics and ideologies are far to complicated to be simply divided into "left vs. right". State vs. anti-State is another matter that was divided into the left -right labels there. Marxists and anarchists are both left wing ideologies and both strive for a stateless, classless society. How much more anti-state can you get? And how about the right winger Franco, who ruled Spain with an iron hand from 1930s to 70s?
And I do wonder what gay rights activists must think of the idea of "freedom loving rightwingers".
Head banger wrote:
oj is a old football player who killed people, killing people means he deprived them of rights, so is a leftist.
that said, this is the truth.
_strat_ wrote:
Oj, just to make sure... Is this serious or is it a joke? In any case, its an epic fail.
Head banger wrote:
The Right-Left Political Matrix
Posted 2/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Political Left Believes:
-That the state knows better than its citizens what is in their best interests;
-In the primacy of the collective over the individual;
-That individual human lives can, and if necessary, must, be sacrificed for the “greater good” as defined by the state;
-That equality is more important than freedom (and that in the prologue to the perfect state, some individuals will be more equal than others);
-That political freedom is a myth, that law is useful only in so far as it advances the interests of the state, that private property is theft, and that public ownership of the means of production is the only way to ensure economic prosperity and equality for all;
-That the only freedom worthy of pursuit (by the state) is the freedom from physical wants for every citizen;
-That in the pursuit of economic progress (as defined by the state), the state is justified in using any measure to attain its goals (whatever its impact on individual welfare or individual lives);
-That the state should actively intervene in all spheres of life in pursuit of state-determined social and economic goals;
-That all economic and political activity should be controlled by the state;
-That social and environmental factors are the prime determinants of individual behavior;
-That truth and morality never were and can never be absolute, except in so far and for so long as they serve the interests of the state; otherwise, they are infinitely malleable;
-That the state is better suited to allocating scarce resources than the free market, including making decisions as to aggregate production and consumption and the setting of prices and wages;
-That the state has the first claim to its citizens’ income and wealth (i.e. what’s yours is theirs);
-That money (in private hands) is the root of all evil;
-That radical, revolutionary and, if necessary, brutally violent change is often the only way to transition from one political, social and/or economic system to another.
The Political Right Believes:
-That individuals can be trusted to act in their own best interests;
-That the individual is, and individual rights are, the cornerstone of civilized society;
-That every human life has value and merits equal protection under the law;
-That the measure of a civilized society is the degree of freedom accorded every individual within it;
-That political and economic freedom are predicated on the rule of law and the right to private property;
-That individual freedoms must include freedom of speech and expression (including freedom of the press), religion, assembly and mobility;
-That the surest path to economic progress is freedom of opportunity and the right of individuals to capture the rewards flowing from the risks they have taken;
-That pro-active discrimination by the state is rarely, if ever, justified in the interests of social and economic justice, however defined;
-That the best government is that which governs least;
-That individuals are accountable for their own actions;
-That truth has an objective basis and that moral principles are absolute;
-That, in most circumstances, the free market is the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources;
-That your income and wealth belong to you and that you are the best judge of how they should be invested or spent (i.e. what’s yours is yours);
-That profit is the just reward for economically and socially beneficial behavior;
-That social, political and economic change is best undertaken incrementally.
***
This left-right matrix was provided by a great friend of the program, VOLYA, which means Will and Liberty in both Russian and Ukrainian.
[_strat_] Friday, February 27, 2009 7:18:08 AM
Oh, well... I guess ill never learn, eh? In any case, I know ONE leftwinger who will become a murderer, if rightwingers keep on winding him up... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 27, 2009 7:16:06 AM)
Head banger wrote:
I knew that. my leftwingers are the only killers was a joke
_strat_ wrote:
No, lol, oj is a typo, when my finger was looking for the "k" but found "j" instead. The guy OJ may be a killer, but he is funny as hell too.
Killing people does mean that they are deprieved of rights... But killing people is not restricted to leftists. Hitler was a far-right winger, killed millions. So did the right winged Catholic church + the eastern Orthodox churches who killed a whole lotta people, and ruled Europe through an oppresive feudalist system that lasted for over a millenium. So much for freedom.
In any case, I would say that the only conclusion that makes sense is that politics and ideologies are far to complicated to be simply divided into "left vs. right". State vs. anti-State is another matter that was divided into the left -right labels there. Marxists and anarchists are both left wing ideologies and both strive for a stateless, classless society. How much more anti-state can you get? And how about the right winger Franco, who ruled Spain with an iron hand from 1930s to 70s?
And I do wonder what gay rights activists must think of the idea of "freedom loving rightwingers".
Head banger wrote:
oj is a old football player who killed people, killing people means he deprived them of rights, so is a leftist.
that said, this is the truth.
_strat_ wrote:
Oj, just to make sure... Is this serious or is it a joke? In any case, its an epic fail.
Head banger wrote:
The Right-Left Political Matrix
Posted 2/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Political Left Believes:
-That the state knows better than its citizens what is in their best interests;
-In the primacy of the collective over the individual;
-That individual human lives can, and if necessary, must, be sacrificed for the “greater good” as defined by the state;
-That equality is more important than freedom (and that in the prologue to the perfect state, some individuals will be more equal than others);
-That political freedom is a myth, that law is useful only in so far as it advances the interests of the state, that private property is theft, and that public ownership of the means of production is the only way to ensure economic prosperity and equality for all;
-That the only freedom worthy of pursuit (by the state) is the freedom from physical wants for every citizen;
-That in the pursuit of economic progress (as defined by the state), the state is justified in using any measure to attain its goals (whatever its impact on individual welfare or individual lives);
-That the state should actively intervene in all spheres of life in pursuit of state-determined social and economic goals;
-That all economic and political activity should be controlled by the state;
-That social and environmental factors are the prime determinants of individual behavior;
-That truth and morality never were and can never be absolute, except in so far and for so long as they serve the interests of the state; otherwise, they are infinitely malleable;
-That the state is better suited to allocating scarce resources than the free market, including making decisions as to aggregate production and consumption and the setting of prices and wages;
-That the state has the first claim to its citizens’ income and wealth (i.e. what’s yours is theirs);
-That money (in private hands) is the root of all evil;
-That radical, revolutionary and, if necessary, brutally violent change is often the only way to transition from one political, social and/or economic system to another.
The Political Right Believes:
-That individuals can be trusted to act in their own best interests;
-That the individual is, and individual rights are, the cornerstone of civilized society;
-That every human life has value and merits equal protection under the law;
-That the measure of a civilized society is the degree of freedom accorded every individual within it;
-That political and economic freedom are predicated on the rule of law and the right to private property;
-That individual freedoms must include freedom of speech and expression (including freedom of the press), religion, assembly and mobility;
-That the surest path to economic progress is freedom of opportunity and the right of individuals to capture the rewards flowing from the risks they have taken;
-That pro-active discrimination by the state is rarely, if ever, justified in the interests of social and economic justice, however defined;
-That the best government is that which governs least;
-That individuals are accountable for their own actions;
-That truth has an objective basis and that moral principles are absolute;
-That, in most circumstances, the free market is the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources;
-That your income and wealth belong to you and that you are the best judge of how they should be invested or spent (i.e. what’s yours is yours);
-That profit is the just reward for economically and socially beneficial behavior;
-That social, political and economic change is best undertaken incrementally.
***
This left-right matrix was provided by a great friend of the program, VOLYA, which means Will and Liberty in both Russian and Ukrainian.
[Head banger] Friday, February 27, 2009 7:17:31 AM
well... on that list (thought it might be biased a little) it says that all the right wing stuff is good.
the real solution is for policians (because lets face it, they dont care what we think) to actualy think, and do the right thing.
Well, there you have it. There is something fundamentally wrong with being either one or the other. It makes more sense to apply combinations of either dependent upon the circumstance. Now that the problem has been identified, what's the solution.
Head banger wrote:
The Right-Left Political Matrix
Posted 2/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Political Left Believes:
-That the state knows better than its citizens what is in their best interests;
-In the primacy of the collective over the individual;
-That individual human lives can, and if necessary, must, be sacrificed for the “greater good” as defined by the state;
-That equality is more important than freedom (and that in the prologue to the perfect state, some individuals will be more equal than others);
-That political freedom is a myth, that law is useful only in so far as it advances the interests of the state, that private property is theft, and that public ownership of the means of production is the only way to ensure economic prosperity and equality for all;
-That the only freedom worthy of pursuit (by the state) is the freedom from physical wants for every citizen;
-That in the pursuit of economic progress (as defined by the state), the state is justified in using any measure to attain its goals (whatever its impact on individual welfare or individual lives);
-That the state should actively intervene in all spheres of life in pursuit of state-determined social and economic goals;
-That all economic and political activity should be controlled by the state;
-That social and environmental factors are the prime determinants of individual behavior;
-That truth and morality never were and can never be absolute, except in so far and for so long as they serve the interests of the state; otherwise, they are infinitely malleable;
-That the state is better suited to allocating scarce resources than the free market, including making decisions as to aggregate production and consumption and the setting of prices and wages;
-That the state has the first claim to its citizens’ income and wealth (i.e. what’s yours is theirs);
-That money (in private hands) is the root of all evil;
-That radical, revolutionary and, if necessary, brutally violent change is often the only way to transition from one political, social and/or economic system to another.
The Political Right Believes:
-That individuals can be trusted to act in their own best interests;
-That the individual is, and individual rights are, the cornerstone of civilized society;
-That every human life has value and merits equal protection under the law;
-That the measure of a civilized society is the degree of freedom accorded every individual within it;
-That political and economic freedom are predicated on the rule of law and the right to private property;
-That individual freedoms must include freedom of speech and expression (including freedom of the press), religion, assembly and mobility;
-That the surest path to economic progress is freedom of opportunity and the right of individuals to capture the rewards flowing from the risks they have taken;
-That pro-active discrimination by the state is rarely, if ever, justified in the interests of social and economic justice, however defined;
-That the best government is that which governs least;
-That individuals are accountable for their own actions;
-That truth has an objective basis and that moral principles are absolute;
-That, in most circumstances, the free market is the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources;
-That your income and wealth belong to you and that you are the best judge of how they should be invested or spent (i.e. what’s yours is yours);
-That profit is the just reward for economically and socially beneficial behavior;
-That social, political and economic change is best undertaken incrementally.
***
This left-right matrix was provided by a great friend of the program, VOLYA, which means Will and Liberty in both Russian and Ukrainian.
he puts it very well LOL!