Discussions on sensitive and sometimes controversial subjects. PLAY NICE!!!!!
You do not have enough Respect Points to post in this topic.
[~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, October 03, 2008 2:41:09 PM
LOL shotz........ Better make that 850 billion, and Iam so happy to see that Nascar is going to get thier tax break in the deal as well..... What a fricken joke. GET ER DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by shotz from Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:52:40 AM)
shotz wrote:
what will 700 billion get you?
[buck foston] Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:52:40 AM
what will 700 billion get you?
[ron h] Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:28:20 AM
PS the medical bills and divorce agreements are NOT related [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:13:26 AM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Thanks for your post, this may (or may not) answer a question I have. At the plant that I work at, I worked with a man who was recently terminated because his documentation was not proper. I don't know when he and his family moved up here (from south of the border), but he had a really nice house and (I kid you not) 8 credit cards to boot. I was born an American, served my country, worked hard, had hic-ups here and there with my credit (mostly because of medical bills and divorce agreements) and have never been fortunate enough to obtain a home loan (no, I am not a minority). Yet someone can live here illegally and get these opportunities? I don't know if one has anything to do with the other, but I am deeply disturbed by this.
Painkiller1990 wrote:
So Who’s really lying about Fannie and Freddie?
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said today on the House floor that this whole mess we're in is the Republicans' fault. She blamed George Bush's economic policies for this financial problem we're having. This is important to know, dear reader, because you need to know the truth. You DESERVE to know the truth. And I can honestly say, if this was reversed and the Republicans were really to blame, I'd be sitting home this election.
But this isn't the case.
The mortgage crisis began actually in the Carter Administration. It's the result of liberalism, it truly is. Liberals believe it's unfair for some poor people to not own a home, minorities mainly, even though they clearly cannot afford one. Under Bill Clinton, Washington passed a bill that actually forced lenders to give loans to people who could never pay them back. It was called affordable housing. Lending institutions were giving loans to people, in some instances, without ever verifying their ability to pay it back. Some other instances saw illegal aliens getting loans, I kid you not. Attorney General, Janet Reno, threatened these institutions with legal actions if they failed to comply and give out these bad loans to people who clearly could never make the payments. And mind you, these are lending practices that under normal circumstances would never ever in a million years have taken place if it weren't for the Government. So, you know what this all really was? It was reparations to minorities!
It was affirmative action at it's finest. Pure, 100% liberalism. It all makes sense to me now because I've been saying since the housing market dropped, you can't loan someone money to buy a 300K dollar home when they're only making 30K a year... with no down payment. It common sense, Man!
But it was really the lending practices forced by the Government that caused this. Liberals tried to say it was predatory lending. The evil banking industry taking advantage of the innocent poor. HA! Now we know better.
Fannie and Freddie, under the control and direction of Franklin Raines, bought up all these toxic loans in an effort to give the appearance that Freddie and Fannie had much more value than was the truth. This is why Raines made almost 100 million dollars in bonuses over 7 years at F&F. And as long as F&F kept donating to the Democratic party, the Democrats would keep covering up all the corruption as you are about to watch. That's right, Clinton and the rest of the Democrats tried to solidify their constituency by guaranteeing them loans they could never pay back. In return, they got the votes. The kick backs went to Christopher Dodd, OBAMA, Jamie Gorelick, Barney Frank, Jim Johnson, Chuck Schumer, and a bunch of other Democrats.
George Bush urged Congress to act between 10 to 15 times to regulate this problem, but those attempts died in the halls of Congress. 2004 is when these hearings took place you're going to see, and pay attention... REPUBLICANS, not Democrats, are trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie because it's clearly evident what has been going on. These hearing are the reason why Franklin Raines got the boot, he was corrupt and got busted.
First video, Nancy Pelosi today blaming George Bush's economic policies and Republicans for the troubles in Fannie and Freddie, and the whole financial situation.
Now, here is what happened in 2004 when the hearings were taking place, and Republicans were calling for more regulations in an effort to stop this illegal activity from turning into the exact problems we're now facing. And the Democrats are all saying Fannie and Freddie are just fine, doing a good job even... covering it all up. It's amazing to watch, it truly is.
And like I said a few days ago, this all, in total and in it's entirety, lays at the feet of liberal Democrats. Make no mistake about it, they are responsible.
it.Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:47:34 PM Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:49:51 PM
[ron h] Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:13:26 AM
Thanks for your post, this may (or may not) answer a question I have. At the plant that I work at, I worked with a man who was recently terminated because his documentation was not proper. I don't know when he and his family moved up here (from south of the border), but he had a really nice house and (I kid you not) 8 credit cards to boot. I was born an American, served my country, worked hard, had hic-ups here and there with my credit (mostly because of medical bills and divorce agreements) and have never been fortunate enough to obtain a home loan (no, I am not a minority). Yet someone can live here illegally and get these opportunities? I don't know if one has anything to do with the other, but I am deeply disturbed by this.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said today on the House floor that this whole mess we're in is the Republicans' fault. She blamed George Bush's economic policies for this financial problem we're having. This is important to know, dear reader, because you need to know the truth. You DESERVE to know the truth. And I can honestly say, if this was reversed and the Republicans were really to blame, I'd be sitting home this election.
But this isn't the case.
The mortgage crisis began actually in the Carter Administration. It's the result of liberalism, it truly is. Liberals believe it's unfair for some poor people to not own a home, minorities mainly, even though they clearly cannot afford one. Under Bill Clinton, Washington passed a bill that actually forced lenders to give loans to people who could never pay them back. It was called affordable housing. Lending institutions were giving loans to people, in some instances, without ever verifying their ability to pay it back. Some other instances saw illegal aliens getting loans, I kid you not. Attorney General, Janet Reno, threatened these institutions with legal actions if they failed to comply and give out these bad loans to people who clearly could never make the payments. And mind you, these are lending practices that under normal circumstances would never ever in a million years have taken place if it weren't for the Government. So, you know what this all really was? It was reparations to minorities!
It was affirmative action at it's finest. Pure, 100% liberalism. It all makes sense to me now because I've been saying since the housing market dropped, you can't loan someone money to buy a 300K dollar home when they're only making 30K a year... with no down payment. It common sense, Man!
But it was really the lending practices forced by the Government that caused this. Liberals tried to say it was predatory lending. The evil banking industry taking advantage of the innocent poor. HA! Now we know better.
Fannie and Freddie, under the control and direction of Franklin Raines, bought up all these toxic loans in an effort to give the appearance that Freddie and Fannie had much more value than was the truth. This is why Raines made almost 100 million dollars in bonuses over 7 years at F&F. And as long as F&F kept donating to the Democratic party, the Democrats would keep covering up all the corruption as you are about to watch. That's right, Clinton and the rest of the Democrats tried to solidify their constituency by guaranteeing them loans they could never pay back. In return, they got the votes. The kick backs went to Christopher Dodd, OBAMA, Jamie Gorelick, Barney Frank, Jim Johnson, Chuck Schumer, and a bunch of other Democrats.
George Bush urged Congress to act between 10 to 15 times to regulate this problem, but those attempts died in the halls of Congress. 2004 is when these hearings took place you're going to see, and pay attention... REPUBLICANS, not Democrats, are trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie because it's clearly evident what has been going on. These hearing are the reason why Franklin Raines got the boot, he was corrupt and got busted.
First video, Nancy Pelosi today blaming George Bush's economic policies and Republicans for the troubles in Fannie and Freddie, and the whole financial situation.
Now, here is what happened in 2004 when the hearings were taking place, and Republicans were calling for more regulations in an effort to stop this illegal activity from turning into the exact problems we're now facing. And the Democrats are all saying Fannie and Freddie are just fine, doing a good job even... covering it all up. It's amazing to watch, it truly is.
And like I said a few days ago, this all, in total and in it's entirety, lays at the feet of liberal Democrats. Make no mistake about it, they are responsible.
it.Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:47:34 PM Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:49:51 PM
[ron h] Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:54:43 AM
That's why I just try to focus on the issues that most directly affect me and my own. Every canidate has it's pluses and miuses. It is a daunting task to filter through all the BS most of the time, so I try to narrow the issues to make it more personal to me and try to focus on that. In my case, it's labor and domestic issues. Yes, I do care about other issues as well, but I'm tired of the home-front playing second fiddles to global affairs. The way I see it, how can we help others if we can't help ourselves. We have way too many domestic problems that need to be addressed and resolved right now, our own issues need to take center stage. All these billions upon billions of dollars being spent outside our borders is literally killing us and future generations to come. We can not solve the worlds problems, and most of the world don't want us to anyway. At what point do we tell some of these other countries to step up and help yourselves? Why do we have to (in some cases) fight our own allies to push our (?) own agenda? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by VICTIM OF METAL from Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:33:20 PM)
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
It depends on what channel you watch? If you don't know don't guess! T.V. media in general is to the Left, some programs, alot more to the Left, The View for one. Radio is to the Right, or middle and then some(O'Riley, who's ratings are tanking) But there isn't much for the middle, on t.v.? I'm just given ya a clue, not bashing ya, i know i'm more of a sports guy to. Obama has been interviewed by O'Riely once. Name one or two on the Right that's interviewed him (OBAMA)? Palin has been interviewed by more then 4-5 on the Left news channels Katie Couric twice, Charlie Gibson another, OH YEA THE CRYPT KEEPER,LOL, Larry King. "Let me ask you a tough question, what's your favorite color?" HE'S TO HOLLYWOOD FOR ME (stares as guests). I don't care what hollyweird thinks, yet he thinks we do?
life is not fair. expecting the media to be so is silly.
learn what you can on your own, base your decisions on that, a past record is usualy a good indicator of future performance.
ronhartsell wrote:
Did I say the media was fair? I said it depends on what station (or something to that effect). Each news/ show/program seems to have their own slant depending on who they favor. Is that a fair? Absolutely not. I don't even really watch news programs and never claimed to, and for that very reason, there is no down the middle, only the facts allowed program that I am aware of. If there is, please do tell, then I might watch, but I'd rather watch and root for my Cubs in the playoffs. My points of view are mine and mine alone. I shared them on this board and am willing to discuss and learn (I've posted as such). Closed minded? I'm about as open minded as they come. Hell, I wish there was a third candidate to choose from, but we're stuck with these two, and like every other American I have to choose the one who I think will serve my best interests better than other. Hence, I choose Obama.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
I would love to, yet you've already stated that the media is fair to both sides. So i know where you stand on most issues. Debating politics with a closed mind is useless.
ronhartsell wrote:
Franklin Raines? You've got to be kidding me. C'mon VOM. He's nothing in this. He's had no personal contact (with the issue I know you are trying to raise) at all with Obama. He has never given any direct advice to Obama. He is one (of many) individuals that has been contacted one time by someone in his campaign committee, and Raines will tell you that himself. Again, he is nothing in this.
James A Johnson. I know he's been involved with numerous fortune 500 and 1000 companies, and I think he had a settlement of some kind not too long ago (earlier this year or last). He does have quite the reputation from what I understand, and is respected in some sectors. I also know he has made contributions to Obama's campaign. Other than that, I can't say that much about him.
C'mon, clue me in, I know you want to.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[Painkiller1990] Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:39:47 PM
So Who’s really lying about Fannie and Freddie?
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said today on the House floor that this whole mess we're in is the Republicans' fault. She blamed George Bush's economic policies for this financial problem we're having. This is important to know, dear reader, because you need to know the truth. You DESERVE to know the truth. And I can honestly say, if this was reversed and the Republicans were really to blame, I'd be sitting home this election.
But this isn't the case.
The mortgage crisis began actually in the Carter Administration. It's the result of liberalism, it truly is. Liberals believe it's unfair for some poor people to not own a home, minorities mainly, even though they clearly cannot afford one. Under Bill Clinton, Washington passed a bill that actually forced lenders to give loans to people who could never pay them back. It was called affordable housing. Lending institutions were giving loans to people, in some instances, without ever verifying their ability to pay it back. Some other instances saw illegal aliens getting loans, I kid you not. Attorney General, Janet Reno, threatened these institutions with legal actions if they failed to comply and give out these bad loans to people who clearly could never make the payments. And mind you, these are lending practices that under normal circumstances would never ever in a million years have taken place if it weren't for the Government. So, you know what this all really was? It was reparations to minorities!
It was affirmative action at it's finest. Pure, 100% liberalism. It all makes sense to me now because I've been saying since the housing market dropped, you can't loan someone money to buy a 300K dollar home when they're only making 30K a year... with no down payment. It common sense, Man!
But it was really the lending practices forced by the Government that caused this. Liberals tried to say it was predatory lending. The evil banking industry taking advantage of the innocent poor. HA! Now we know better.
Fannie and Freddie, under the control and direction of Franklin Raines, bought up all these toxic loans in an effort to give the appearance that Freddie and Fannie had much more value than was the truth. This is why Raines made almost 100 million dollars in bonuses over 7 years at F&F. And as long as F&F kept donating to the Democratic party, the Democrats would keep covering up all the corruption as you are about to watch. That's right, Clinton and the rest of the Democrats tried to solidify their constituency by guaranteeing them loans they could never pay back. In return, they got the votes. The kick backs went to Christopher Dodd, OBAMA, Jamie Gorelick, Barney Frank, Jim Johnson, Chuck Schumer, and a bunch of other Democrats.
George Bush urged Congress to act between 10 to 15 times to regulate this problem, but those attempts died in the halls of Congress. 2004 is when these hearings took place you're going to see, and pay attention... REPUBLICANS, not Democrats, are trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie because it's clearly evident what has been going on. These hearing are the reason why Franklin Raines got the boot, he was corrupt and got busted.
First video, Nancy Pelosi today blaming George Bush's economic policies and Republicans for the troubles in Fannie and Freddie, and the whole financial situation.
Now, here is what happened in 2004 when the hearings were taking place, and Republicans were calling for more regulations in an effort to stop this illegal activity from turning into the exact problems we're now facing. And the Democrats are all saying Fannie and Freddie are just fine, doing a good job even... covering it all up. It's amazing to watch, it truly is.
And like I said a few days ago, this all, in total and in it's entirety, lays at the feet of liberal Democrats. Make no mistake about it, they are responsible.
it.Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:47:34 PM Edited at: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:49:51 PM
[VICTIM OF METAL] Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:33:20 PM
It depends on what channel you watch? If you don't know don't guess! T.V. media in general is to the Left, some programs, alot more to the Left, The View for one. Radio is to the Right, or middle and then some(O'Riley, who's ratings are tanking) But there isn't much for the middle, on t.v.? I'm just given ya a clue, not bashing ya, i know i'm more of a sports guy to. Obama has been interviewed by O'Riely once. Name one or two on the Right that's interviewed him (OBAMA)? Palin has been interviewed by more then 4-5 on the Left news channels Katie Couric twice, Charlie Gibson another, OH YEA THE CRYPT KEEPER,LOL, Larry King. "Let me ask you a tough question, what's your favorite color?" HE'S TO HOLLYWOOD FOR ME (stares as guests). I don't care what hollyweird thinks, yet he thinks we do?
[Head banger] Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:26:49 AM
I dont hold much influence in elections, as I am in managment. I was elected shop steward once, another steward told the business agent I didnt want to do it, so they bounced me, which, whatever. here, diferent from the USA, the stewards and elected members dont make the call, the business agents and employees of the union do. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:42:16 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Head Banger, It's sad to hear what happened. I can and will speak only of my experiences. I am close to the end of my 3 year term, and it's the first time I've held a union position. Aside from that, I have been a union member for a total of 12 years. I, like yourself, have witnessed injustices in the workplace such as the one you wrote about. To me, the union's credibility lies with the elected representatives, who's job it is to protect the innocent victims. If you have officers who lack moral conviction and a sense of responsibility and obligation to the workers they represent, then they are the worst types of people there are. I run an honest union. I make no excuses for the violators of workplace conduct. If they (and a few have tried) want to file a DFR (Duty to Fair Representation) charge, so be it. That is not why I do this job or take my responsibilities lightly. It's hard enough having to deal with bad management without dealing with situations like we're discussing here. It is my responsibility, as the Chairman, to co-ordinate the Committee persons (grievers/stewards) and collectively we decide whether to file grievances or not. In the case in your workplace, that injustice had to be a co-ordinated effort by the entire board, and they should have ALL been held accountable, that is why you attend union meetings. The collective group of all the workers is the union, not the elected officers, we are subject to the workforce, that is who we, as officers, answer to. Something like that has not happened in my workplace under my watch, and it never will!!! Hold your officers accountable!!!
Head banger wrote:
sorry, I am late with a reply, got busy and forgot. anyway, if the union was only ever protecting the ones discriminated against, fine and well, but if a union employee harasses a union employee, the company fires the harasser, the union defends them, attacking their own member who was harassed. happened at my work, and the girl who was harassed ended up quiting, and spending some time in treatment, because of the way her union defended her attacker.
ronhartsell wrote:
If there were no bias or clicks or favorites or discrimination or sexual harassment or many, many other things that go on in the workplace then no, there wouldn't be a need. BUT THERE IS!!! Always have been, always will be. If you can put an end to all of that and leave it only up to an individuals' production, then there wouldn't be a need for protection. How many women have been fired for filing a sexual harassment charge? Or even worse, how many women don't file a charge out of fear of being terminated (or worse)?
Head banger wrote:
if your a good worker, why do you need protection? who would fire a good worker?
ronhartsell wrote:
Not true. In the Right to Work states, as the one I live in, employers do not even have to have a reason to terminate an employee. So, no, the worker does not have the right to say what he/she wants, there is no standing up for yourself without the risk of being terminated. How just is that?
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Why does your worker need you to speak for him? Can he not speak for himself through his own work? That's what counts.....the work. We speak of downsizing larger governenments in the betterment of the process. And yet, the unions need to maintain their control over the worker. We complain of the government pulling our strings. And yet allow unions to pull the strings of the employee to slow down progress and upward mobility.
You know what brings a worker to the same level as his employer? Hard work and production. THAT is power.
a. Hammerstein
ronhartsell wrote:
Do we actually read posts before posting. I wrote that I vote based on the candidates past voting record. What did I post that makes you post that the union buys this or tells you to do that. It's nowhere in my postings.
I do what I do in my union because I believe in workers rights, fair representation, and having a say in my working conditions. Unions allow workers to do that. A business? As long as there's an IRS, everything is a business. There are costs involved in forming a union. There's rental of space for meetings, travel and training expenses. Let's not kid ourselves here, nothing is free, my friends.
I posted some facts and quotes to support my position, and I have plenty more. All this generalizing just leads me to believe that some postings on this issue is just the same old rhetoric I hear from my bosses.
Please, if we're going to discuss things, then let's just do that.
[Head banger] Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:25:56 AM
life is not fair. expecting the media to be so is silly.
learn what you can on your own, base your decisions on that, a past record is usualy a good indicator of future performance. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:21:44 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Did I say the media was fair? I said it depends on what station (or something to that effect). Each news/ show/program seems to have their own slant depending on who they favor. Is that a fair? Absolutely not. I don't even really watch news programs and never claimed to, and for that very reason, there is no down the middle, only the facts allowed program that I am aware of. If there is, please do tell, then I might watch, but I'd rather watch and root for my Cubs in the playoffs. My points of view are mine and mine alone. I shared them on this board and am willing to discuss and learn (I've posted as such). Closed minded? I'm about as open minded as they come. Hell, I wish there was a third candidate to choose from, but we're stuck with these two, and like every other American I have to choose the one who I think will serve my best interests better than other. Hence, I choose Obama.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
I would love to, yet you've already stated that the media is fair to both sides. So i know where you stand on most issues. Debating politics with a closed mind is useless.
ronhartsell wrote:
Franklin Raines? You've got to be kidding me. C'mon VOM. He's nothing in this. He's had no personal contact (with the issue I know you are trying to raise) at all with Obama. He has never given any direct advice to Obama. He is one (of many) individuals that has been contacted one time by someone in his campaign committee, and Raines will tell you that himself. Again, he is nothing in this.
James A Johnson. I know he's been involved with numerous fortune 500 and 1000 companies, and I think he had a settlement of some kind not too long ago (earlier this year or last). He does have quite the reputation from what I understand, and is respected in some sectors. I also know he has made contributions to Obama's campaign. Other than that, I can't say that much about him.
C'mon, clue me in, I know you want to.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[ron h] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:42:16 PM
Head Banger, It's sad to hear what happened. I can and will speak only of my experiences. I am close to the end of my 3 year term, and it's the first time I've held a union position. Aside from that, I have been a union member for a total of 12 years. I, like yourself, have witnessed injustices in the workplace such as the one you wrote about. To me, the union's credibility lies with the elected representatives, who's job it is to protect the innocent victims. If you have officers who lack moral conviction and a sense of responsibility and obligation to the workers they represent, then they are the worst types of people there are. I run an honest union. I make no excuses for the violators of workplace conduct. If they (and a few have tried) want to file a DFR (Duty to Fair Representation) charge, so be it. That is not why I do this job or take my responsibilities lightly. It's hard enough having to deal with bad management without dealing with situations like we're discussing here. It is my responsibility, as the Chairman, to co-ordinate the Committee persons (grievers/stewards) and collectively we decide whether to file grievances or not. In the case in your workplace, that injustice had to be a co-ordinated effort by the entire board, and they should have ALL been held accountable, that is why you attend union meetings. The collective group of all the workers is the union, not the elected officers, we are subject to the workforce, that is who we, as officers, answer to. Something like that has not happened in my workplace under my watch, and it never will!!! Hold your officers accountable!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:29:15 AM)
Head banger wrote:
sorry, I am late with a reply, got busy and forgot. anyway, if the union was only ever protecting the ones discriminated against, fine and well, but if a union employee harasses a union employee, the company fires the harasser, the union defends them, attacking their own member who was harassed. happened at my work, and the girl who was harassed ended up quiting, and spending some time in treatment, because of the way her union defended her attacker.
ronhartsell wrote:
If there were no bias or clicks or favorites or discrimination or sexual harassment or many, many other things that go on in the workplace then no, there wouldn't be a need. BUT THERE IS!!! Always have been, always will be. If you can put an end to all of that and leave it only up to an individuals' production, then there wouldn't be a need for protection. How many women have been fired for filing a sexual harassment charge? Or even worse, how many women don't file a charge out of fear of being terminated (or worse)?
Head banger wrote:
if your a good worker, why do you need protection? who would fire a good worker?
ronhartsell wrote:
Not true. In the Right to Work states, as the one I live in, employers do not even have to have a reason to terminate an employee. So, no, the worker does not have the right to say what he/she wants, there is no standing up for yourself without the risk of being terminated. How just is that?
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Why does your worker need you to speak for him? Can he not speak for himself through his own work? That's what counts.....the work. We speak of downsizing larger governenments in the betterment of the process. And yet, the unions need to maintain their control over the worker. We complain of the government pulling our strings. And yet allow unions to pull the strings of the employee to slow down progress and upward mobility.
You know what brings a worker to the same level as his employer? Hard work and production. THAT is power.
a. Hammerstein
ronhartsell wrote:
Do we actually read posts before posting. I wrote that I vote based on the candidates past voting record. What did I post that makes you post that the union buys this or tells you to do that. It's nowhere in my postings.
I do what I do in my union because I believe in workers rights, fair representation, and having a say in my working conditions. Unions allow workers to do that. A business? As long as there's an IRS, everything is a business. There are costs involved in forming a union. There's rental of space for meetings, travel and training expenses. Let's not kid ourselves here, nothing is free, my friends.
I posted some facts and quotes to support my position, and I have plenty more. All this generalizing just leads me to believe that some postings on this issue is just the same old rhetoric I hear from my bosses.
Please, if we're going to discuss things, then let's just do that.
[ron h] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:21:44 PM
Did I say the media was fair? I said it depends on what station (or something to that effect). Each news/ show/program seems to have their own slant depending on who they favor. Is that a fair? Absolutely not. I don't even really watch news programs and never claimed to, and for that very reason, there is no down the middle, only the facts allowed program that I am aware of. If there is, please do tell, then I might watch, but I'd rather watch and root for my Cubs in the playoffs. My points of view are mine and mine alone. I shared them on this board and am willing to discuss and learn (I've posted as such). Closed minded? I'm about as open minded as they come. Hell, I wish there was a third candidate to choose from, but we're stuck with these two, and like every other American I have to choose the one who I think will serve my best interests better than other. Hence, I choose Obama. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by VICTIM OF METAL from Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:33:00 AM)
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
I would love to, yet you've already stated that the media is fair to both sides. So i know where you stand on most issues. Debating politics with a closed mind is useless.
ronhartsell wrote:
Franklin Raines? You've got to be kidding me. C'mon VOM. He's nothing in this. He's had no personal contact (with the issue I know you are trying to raise) at all with Obama. He has never given any direct advice to Obama. He is one (of many) individuals that has been contacted one time by someone in his campaign committee, and Raines will tell you that himself. Again, he is nothing in this.
James A Johnson. I know he's been involved with numerous fortune 500 and 1000 companies, and I think he had a settlement of some kind not too long ago (earlier this year or last). He does have quite the reputation from what I understand, and is respected in some sectors. I also know he has made contributions to Obama's campaign. Other than that, I can't say that much about him.
C'mon, clue me in, I know you want to.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:33:14 AM
LOL @ Headbanger.. you got that right! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:17:37 AM)
Head banger wrote:
and, thank fuck the two morons want it, so I can get out.
MEDALGODDESS wrote:
[Head banger] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:29:32 AM
no one has your best interests at heart beter than you. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Friday, September 26, 2008 5:21:10 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Once again, why oh why does the company have to take care of you after you retire? Use your own smarts and set up yopur own future. That's the mind-set that separates the average from the high achievers. Your pension should NEVER be your only source of retirement income. Who here doesn't have some sort of retirement strategy in place? If you don't, then you're a jobber that's relying on your companyb to take care of you. Wrong. You take care of you.
a. Hammerstein
ronhartsell wrote:
Let me also add this, our seniors, who have already worked hard their entire lives, deserve a secure and dignified retirement. McCain calls the current system of guaranteed monthly benefits for retirees an "absolute disgrace." He voted for Bush's plan to put Social Security funds into risky private accounts. Obama supports guaranteed monthly benefits earned by seniors. He opposes risky private accounts, which will slash benefits for seniors. I think we all know the state of SS benefits, but if there is going to be reform in this area, they have to come up with something a hell of a lot better than this. We've all spent our entire working lives paying for this by way of taxes out of every single paycheck, and to take a risky chance of losing it all? How can this be acceptable? This is the best we can do?
Thanks Painkiller and VOM for showing respect in this messed up world of politics. At the end of the day we may not all agree with each other, but I learn as much as I share when it comes to the issues, and it helps when opposing sides aren't going at each other's throats.
Painkiller1990 wrote:
It's not hard at all, Ron. Just tell us what McCain has voted for you disagree with regarding "labor" That's your main concern, I can appreciate that, but give me some specifics.
BTW, you should know that I am no McCain fan, but I know how bad the alternatives are.
So, if you don't mind, give me three specific things McCain has voted for which makes you think Obama would be a better president.
Thanks.
[Head banger] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:29:15 AM
sorry, I am late with a reply, got busy and forgot. anyway, if the union was only ever protecting the ones discriminated against, fine and well, but if a union employee harasses a union employee, the company fires the harasser, the union defends them, attacking their own member who was harassed. happened at my work, and the girl who was harassed ended up quiting, and spending some time in treatment, because of the way her union defended her attacker. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:44:16 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
If there were no bias or clicks or favorites or discrimination or sexual harassment or many, many other things that go on in the workplace then no, there wouldn't be a need. BUT THERE IS!!! Always have been, always will be. If you can put an end to all of that and leave it only up to an individuals' production, then there wouldn't be a need for protection. How many women have been fired for filing a sexual harassment charge? Or even worse, how many women don't file a charge out of fear of being terminated (or worse)?
Head banger wrote:
if your a good worker, why do you need protection? who would fire a good worker?
ronhartsell wrote:
Not true. In the Right to Work states, as the one I live in, employers do not even have to have a reason to terminate an employee. So, no, the worker does not have the right to say what he/she wants, there is no standing up for yourself without the risk of being terminated. How just is that?
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Why does your worker need you to speak for him? Can he not speak for himself through his own work? That's what counts.....the work. We speak of downsizing larger governenments in the betterment of the process. And yet, the unions need to maintain their control over the worker. We complain of the government pulling our strings. And yet allow unions to pull the strings of the employee to slow down progress and upward mobility.
You know what brings a worker to the same level as his employer? Hard work and production. THAT is power.
a. Hammerstein
ronhartsell wrote:
Do we actually read posts before posting. I wrote that I vote based on the candidates past voting record. What did I post that makes you post that the union buys this or tells you to do that. It's nowhere in my postings.
I do what I do in my union because I believe in workers rights, fair representation, and having a say in my working conditions. Unions allow workers to do that. A business? As long as there's an IRS, everything is a business. There are costs involved in forming a union. There's rental of space for meetings, travel and training expenses. Let's not kid ourselves here, nothing is free, my friends.
I posted some facts and quotes to support my position, and I have plenty more. All this generalizing just leads me to believe that some postings on this issue is just the same old rhetoric I hear from my bosses.
Please, if we're going to discuss things, then let's just do that.
[Head banger] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:17:37 AM
and, thank fuck the two morons want it, so I can get out. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by MEDALGODDESS from Monday, September 29, 2008 3:17:32 PM)
MEDALGODDESS wrote:
[VICTIM OF METAL] Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:33:00 AM
I would love to, yet you've already stated that the media is fair to both sides. So i know where you stand on most issues. Debating politics with a closed mind is useless.
Franklin Raines? You've got to be kidding me. C'mon VOM. He's nothing in this. He's had no personal contact (with the issue I know you are trying to raise) at all with Obama. He has never given any direct advice to Obama. He is one (of many) individuals that has been contacted one time by someone in his campaign committee, and Raines will tell you that himself. Again, he is nothing in this.
James A Johnson. I know he's been involved with numerous fortune 500 and 1000 companies, and I think he had a settlement of some kind not too long ago (earlier this year or last). He does have quite the reputation from what I understand, and is respected in some sectors. I also know he has made contributions to Obama's campaign. Other than that, I can't say that much about him.
C'mon, clue me in, I know you want to.
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[ron h] Monday, September 29, 2008 9:13:30 PM
Franklin Raines? You've got to be kidding me. C'mon VOM. He's nothing in this. He's had no personal contact (with the issue I know you are trying to raise) at all with Obama. He has never given any direct advice to Obama. He is one (of many) individuals that has been contacted one time by someone in his campaign committee, and Raines will tell you that himself. Again, he is nothing in this.
James A Johnson. I know he's been involved with numerous fortune 500 and 1000 companies, and I think he had a settlement of some kind not too long ago (earlier this year or last). He does have quite the reputation from what I understand, and is respected in some sectors. I also know he has made contributions to Obama's campaign. Other than that, I can't say that much about him.
C'mon, clue me in, I know you want to. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by VICTIM OF METAL from Monday, September 29, 2008 6:51:34 PM)
VICTIM OF METAL wrote:
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[VICTIM OF METAL] Monday, September 29, 2008 6:51:34 PM
Two names, Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson?
[ron h] Monday, September 29, 2008 6:30:08 PM
I will repeat, in brief, what I posted last week.
McCain has told me that nothing is going to change (for the better) if he is elected President.
Obama has been interviewed by O'Riely once. Name one or two on the Right that's interviewed him (OBAMA)? Palin has been interviewed by more then 4-5 on the Left news channels Katie Couric twice, Charlie Gibson another, OH YEA THE CRYPT KEEPER,LOL, Larry King. "Let me ask you a tough question, what's your favorite color?" HE'S TO HOLLYWOOD FOR ME (stares as guests). I don't care what hollyweird thinks, yet he thinks we do?
So i know where you stand on most issues. Debating politics with a closed mind is useless.
