The People have spoken...

5.56X45mm

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
The American people have spoken, and, in overwhelming numbers, they’ve said they want change.
Very well.
Just so we all know, here’s a partial list of the changes we’re likely to get more of:

  • High Taxes
  • Gun Control
  • State ownership of capital
  • Constitutional reconstructionism through the courts
  • Nanny government and oppressive regulation
  • A weak, impotent military
  • Inept foreign policy
  • Trial lawyers and liberal judges
  • Socialism
  • Internationalist subservience to the United Nations
  • Socialized medical care
  • Stronger labor unions
  • Racism (hiring- and college enrolment quotas)
  • Class warfare
  • Voter fraud
  • Lax immigration controls
  • Wealth redistributionism
  • Hostility towards business, and capitalism in general
  • Over-aggressive environmentalism
  • Support for failed social programs
  • Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Maxine Waters, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Dick Durbin running Congress.
So we’re going to get the changes we asked for, and we’re going to get them good and hard.
 
5.56X45mm said:
The American people have spoken, and, in overwhelming numbers, they’ve said they want change.
Very well.
Just so we all know, here’s a partial list of the changes we’re likely to get more of:

  • High Taxes*
  • Gun Control***
  • State ownership of capital**
  • Constitutional reconstructionism through the courts
  • Nanny government and oppressive regulation*
  • A weak, impotent military*
  • Inept foreign policy*
  • Trial lawyers and liberal judges
  • Socialism**
  • Internationalist subservience to the United Nations
  • Socialized medical care
  • Stronger labor unions***
  • Racism (hiring- and college enrolment quotas)*
  • Class warfare**
  • Voter fraud*
  • Lax immigration controls**
  • Wealth redistributionism***
  • Hostility towards business, and capitalism in general*
  • Over-aggressive environmentalism
  • Support for failed social programs
  • Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Maxine Waters, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Dick Durbin running Congress.
So we’re going to get the changes we asked for, and we’re going to get them good and hard.
Click to expand...
*: bull.
**: already exists
***: that's a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
More crying ..........

5X ...........
I addressed your crybaby comments in other threads ... so I won't say very much here.

All I will point out, is the American voter no longer buy the GOP party using hate, fear and political phobias to get their way.

There is a new Sheriff in town and his name is Obama
... and ...
there is a new color in Washington DC, and it is blue.​

Your 15 minutes of fame is over
<<< S O >>>
GET OVER IT.​
 
Stronger labor unions is not a good thing.
They have a habit of pricing themselves out of the market. They demand the most money for the least work and it usually means their trade won't survive their generation and will move abroad.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Stronger labor unions is not a good thing.
They have a habit of pricing themselves out of the market. They demand the most money for the least work and it usually means their trade won't survive their generation and will move abroad.
Click to expand...
Only if the government lets them. Like, for example, lowering the taxes of businesses that move said jobs.
 
Would you accept $100 a week to make folding chairs so others can buy them for $5?
 
No Union member will knowingly price themselves out of the market. After all they are merely trying to improve their lot, and being out of work is definitely not the way to accomplish that. They are often poor, but not necessarily stupid.

Generally what unionists are trying to accomplish is a fair rate of pay for the work they do. It does not go down well when a sweatshop worker comes home with barely enough money to make ends meet, and hears on the news that the shareholders in the company employing him have just received a record dividend.

This is only an example, but Unions are there to help those who need it most, the man on the bottom rung of the ladder. There is no way he will price himself out of a job,... would you? Of course not.
 
senojekips said:
No Union member will knowingly price themselves out of the market. After all they are merely trying to improve their lot, and being out of work is definitely not the way to accomplish that. They are often poor, but not necessarily stupid.

Generally what unionists are trying to accomplish is a fair rate of pay for the work they do. It does not go down well when a sweatshop worker comes home with barely enough money to make ends meet, and hears on the news that the shareholders in the company employing him have just received a record dividend.

This is only an example, but Unions are there to help those who need it most, the man on the bottom rung of the ladder. There is no way he will price himself out of a job,... would you? Of course not.
Click to expand...

The problem is finding the balance for unions/management relations, for a long time in this country unions were out of control and drove many small businesses into the ground through heavy handed demands.
 
We've had some cases of unions pricing themselves out of the market. In Seoul there aren't many public garbage cans... some districts seem to be void of any. The garbage men priced themselves out of the market.
The issue is, the union leaders will reap the immediate benefits of the newly signed negotiations, meanwhile the management will seek to find cheaper sources of labor.
I understand that people need to lead good lives but if you sweep the road for a living, that's the sort of money you'll get. Harsh I know. Hell, I'm about to face life with very poor pay but it's something I'm going to have to accept.
People don't bust their asses working their way through high school and college to earn degrees and get good jobs for sh*ts and giggles.
Should we make sure that any person with a full time job with reasonable spending discipline stay well above the poverty line? Yes. Can we guarantee everyone a car and a house with a garage? No.
I don't know about how unions are in Australia or the US, but over here it sometimes gets ridiculous. You have these guys who are making FAR more money than senior NCOs in the military with better benefits be it medical insurance, facilities, work environment, leave, sick leave, working hours, with jobs which are often easier than what these military people have to do and they STILL go on strike. Hell, the military should go on strike. And the officers don't make THAT much more either.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the garbage men have either found better paying work or died of starvation and I don't think it would be the latter. So it's a case of supply and demand, which is not necessarily a good idea but I guess it does work.

I'm afraid it's not quite that simple, it's all about fair distribution of wealth rather than just "being better off". Hence my example with shareholders. The share holders would have earned nothing without the efforts of those who did the dirty work, it's a two way street, both parties are necessary and the distribution of the wealth should be in kind. Not starve the workers merely so that the Shareholders can have big dividends.

It all comes home to roost when you work in an Internationally competitive industry. I live, work and pay my taxes in Australia, why should I have to compete for jobs with an Indian who can live quite happily in his own country on a few dollars a day? It's only my union that has managed to keep my job, and the shareholders are not withdrawing their money, they are still doing very well, thank you very much. Not nearly as well as they would do if they had Indian crews, but they are happy enough to keep their money where it is.


the_13th_redneck said:
We've had some cases of unions pricing themselves out of the market. In Seoul there aren't many public garbage cans... some districts seem to be void of any. The garbage men priced themselves out of the market.
The issue is, the union leaders will reap the immediate benefits of the newly signed negotiations, meanwhile the management will seek to find cheaper sources of labor.
I understand that people need to lead good lives but if you sweep the road for a living, that's the sort of money you'll get. Harsh I know. Hell, I'm about to face life with very poor pay but it's something I'm going to have to accept.
People don't bust their asses working their way through high school and college to earn degrees and get good jobs for sh*ts and giggles.
Should we make sure that any person with a full time job with reasonable spending discipline stay well above the poverty line? Yes. Can we guarantee everyone a car and a house with a garage? No.
I don't know about how unions are in Australia or the US, but over here it sometimes gets ridiculous. You have these guys who are making FAR more money than senior NCOs in the military with better benefits be it medical insurance, facilities, work environment, leave, sick leave, working hours, with jobs which are often easier than what these military people have to do and they STILL go on strike. Hell, the military should go on strike. And the officers don't make THAT much more either.
Click to expand...
 
Yep,... It's all a matter of balance. It's not communism or socialism, it's just that everyone should have the right to earn the money to which they are fairly entitled.

Unfortunately there is always someone who wants more than his fair share, and once they establish themselves in a position of power, they enshrine unfair practices into law thereby ensuring their own continued dominance of those less fortunate. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist, but all levels of society should have the right to a fair share of the money that they earn.

If you won't work, all bets are off.
 
Last edited:
Well,
that list looks very familiar, yes, its what we live with in Australia..
Is it a bad thing, nope!
And also, as a tradesman, and a union member myself, i would not have the pay and conditions that I do without the union backing, and without their voice.
There are 1200 workers in the company I work for (state electricity distributor ((ETSA spike))) and without the union backing, our company would walk all over us, and even now, we are 6% or so behind what our colleagues interstate are paid.


Dave
 
senojekips said:
Yep,... It's all a matter of balance. It's not communism or socialism, it's just that everyone should have the right to earn the money to which they are fairly entitled...but all levels of society should have the right to a fair share of the money that they earn.
Click to expand...

I thought that was one of the main aims of Socialism and Communism?
 
But Unions have been around for a very long time and most of the time they don't contribute to societal collapse. Personally can't name the last time a Union was responsible for causing mass famine leading to the deaths of millions of people.
Obviously there is a difference.
 
perseus said:
I thought that was one of the main aims of Socialism and Communism?
Click to expand...
It may well be, no doubt communism and Socialism have many aims and ideals, but I suppose it is a matter of degree, like the people who try to implement these aims. I ride a motorbike, that does not mean that I am a member of an outlaw biker gang.

These are only names, often bearing little semblance to reality. I have worked with Communists that I wouldn't p!ss on, and I've worked with Commos that were the salt of the earth. The same applies to Right wingers.

As a long term Union delegate, (20+ years) I can say that I considered the Skipper of one of my ships to be good friend and very fair man, he fought for the Company and I fought for my men. I wouldn't even waste my time on petty and unreasonable requests from the men, but I did have my fair share of worthwhile "wins" against the company when it counted, and there was never any ill feeling. We resolved probably 90-95% of all disputes quickly and amicably.

Never knowingly tell lies, Don't try to protect the guilty, have the facts in hand and speak to people as you might expect to be spoken to yourself. Believe me, it works!
 
Last edited:
5.56


Surely you have to acknowledge that from to the election results, which included your own state, most Americans simply do not share your appraisal of either Obama or the Democratic party. If people really thought the way you do Obama would have never been nominated, let alone elected.

This election wasn't even that close -and when you beaten that badly its time to go home and re-evualte yourself. I am sure that is precisely what is going on right now at GOP HQ. They are asking themselves: What happened?/Where did we go wrong?

The answer to in IMHO is that they have been totally Disconnected from reality for the past several years. They have listened more to special interest groups and not at all to voters concern on Iraq (which most are against), Universal healthcare (which they are for), and the bad shape of the economy. When you ignore the voters, you can expect results like what happened on Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
Never knowingly tell lies, Don't try to protect the guilty, have the facts in hand and speak to people as you might expect to be spoken to yourself. Believe me, it works!
Click to expand...

This is just golden.
Once you lie, everything you say afterwards is just a waste of oxygen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top