Great comment

What works one way has to work the other. But maybe that makes too much sense for the UAW.

 

Somehow, I seriously doubt that anyone completing such research could come to that conclusion, outside the rich upper class, that is...
Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not condescending, we are ALL IGNORANT in different areas in varying degrees, to deny it would be...dare I say...doublely ignorant.

 

No one tells anyone; how to vote, what to do or say, talk about exaggeration, do you work for the press?
Plato said it best, (paraphrase=) The more my knowledge increased, the more I realized the vastness of my ignorance....

 

Really? What political party did your dues go to in the 2004 election? Who does your leadership say you should vote for? Or do they not say at all?

Not at all. Just don't park in our parking lot if you have a foreign car or a GWB sticker.

Nope. Not at all.

Nope. Nor do I work for a union. Nor am I rich - or even close. Neither was my Mom, my Dad, or my sisters. Yet somehow, we still came to a different conclusion than you. Doesn't exactly fit the stereotype you posted above, does it?

I have a better quote - circa Bob Cosby 2003: "I know enough to know that I never know enough".

Totally irrelevant to your union rantings, but it sounds good.

BTW...that link is now up on Drudge. Hopefully it will spread around some more.

 

So what you're saying is, that poor people should vote Democrat? what incentive then, is there for the Democrats to encourage (economically, socially, policy) people to become wealthy? If the Dems can always count on the 'poor' vote then you can always count on them to vote to keep you poor.


BTW, I consider myself to be politcally netural, in no way do I think that any politcal party is anywhere near ideal or can bring any significant improvment to the human condition. I'm just bringing out some opinions, and you could easily replace the dems for repubs if they were into representing the poor thing. While money won't bring you happiness, niether will poverty, and at least I'll have some options.

 

If we're all ignorant, then do you have the same feelings towards people who slap Democrat stickers on their cars? That you automatically oppose them because they obviously haven't researched their position? Or are they assumed to be less ignorant than those who buy Bush stickers?

Well, at least you are consistent in being condescending. It's amazing that you think your economic theories are more viable than the President's and his team of advisors. But given your blind support of unionism, I would have to question your basis in economic theory. It's pretty much established that restraint of trade measures are detrimental to an economy in the long run. At the risk of generalizing, I will say that it's a typical democratic solution: try to fix the symptom, not the problem. People are getting shot? Outlaw guns! People are buying foreign cars? Jack up the tariffs! By all means, don't try to fix the underlying reason why people want a Toyota in the first place. Much easier to tilt the playing field I suppose. It might work in the short run, but in the long run we are all losers.

 

http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/04/1004/feature03.cfm
(Just a quick look at some unpopular, under-publicized numbers.)

Where do your hard earned dollars, spent go??? All of our money goes places that are out of our direct control, moot point.
No, but it does sound like an uninformed one...
Just my point..
I feel that the majority of people this past election supported candidates who were portrayed in the media as having similar views as they do, WITHOUT paying attention to "track records" or career histories of those individuals, making "ignorant votes"...
Prove to me by history that there was EVER a Republican President that supported the Middle-to Lower Classes, I challenge you. My grandfather passed on last year, and we, shortly before, discussed to great length what he'd seen in his 91 years...And his words, "son, I have NEVER seen good days in our economy, when we've had a Republican President, they've never been for the "working man""....I put 91 years of life experience against media propaganda anyday.(flame away...but I have my own research too.)
No, just looking into his/their past efforts, history's a great learning tool, you should try it.
NO, make them equal to what we are seeing, again, do some research.Like, a lower price, due to an unequal trade deficet. Bush does NOT support guns! do some research!...now he's an NRA icon.. As far as I'm concerned the NRA has been infiltrated on high levels. As a matter of fact Bush's said that if the ban on assault rifles passed congress, he WOULD SIGN IT. He's for giving you hunting/sporting guns, like shotguns & SOME pistols, IF you register so he can get them later...should a "National Emergency" arrise.. (Seems like Hitler was for registering too, huh??)You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes...(..to borrow a catchy pun...)
What was the whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment??
To keep the "Arms" in the people's hands, NOT a standing millitary, to defend this nation from their government becoming tyrannical.(Which is ultimately inevitable....)Does this then mean; we are allowed to own a revolver and a shotgun or single shot hunting rifle?? NO, on the contrary, we were supposed to form millitia's and arm ourselves with weapons of battle, to protect this country by coming together as an army, when necessary, to repel would be aggressors. There are distinct advantages from this;( one)= spies would report back to their superiors that the whole populous IS ARMED, a formidable foe. (two)= we need not fear government that tries to opress us, by laws or taxes. (three)= reduces crime; everyone knows you are "armed" with leathel weapons, and will rethink breaking into your home. (four)= remind and teach us of our responsibilities to our country in a very personal way. The power in the people's hands....where it was intended by our framers.(and the list goes on...)

 

And the idiot collection known as the UAW leadership has enough ignorance (and corruption...) to spread around for the entire planet.

 

A partisan look, of course. And uh, that's just a bit old. Care to dig up the Feb job growth numbers? Will it fit your paridigm?

Lots of things - including my new union-built car.

Ya, your union bosses control it, and give a great deal of it to the Democratic party. Do you disagree?

Once again - I come to a different conclusion, thus I am uninformed.

My friend, one day, you might realize why liberals are losing their control of the US Gov't. It is rooted in your arrogance, but you cannot see it.

Ignorance indeed.

That said, I dislike political threads, and will now bow out of this one. Have fun, and God bless.

 

I'll add some current links, as I find them, on our blooming economy and how our caring presidential party helps us..
http://www.forbes.com/associatedpres...ap1880353.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-_x.htm?csp=34

 

So because Bush and his administration are far from flawless that make the UAW discriminating against potential and actual customers based on something as contrived as political party and or import ownership a good idea? Not happening.

This is why political threads are banned, because people will devour any oppurtunity to purvey their agenda no matter how moronic, irrelevant or devoid of reasoning it is.

If bush were eating babies for breakfast lunch and dinner, many of the UAWs practices (like this one) would continue to hurt the industry it claims to love so much.

 

Have you been following the thread?...and you don't see the relevance...hmmmm.
The people in the UAW have had their lively hoods stripped and threatened repeatedly, and as a beaten dog, are criticized when the snap at someone(who is identified with the "aledged" beater)...I'm not saying I'd do the same!...but I understand. Don't get me wrong, there's ignorance in the UAW as well, as this probably shows, just don't be so quick to lench them.
How does this hurt the industry? By saying we don't want to be seen holding the hand that's slitting our throat??

 

As I understand it, unions came into being originally because the working conditions for the average heavy industry worker were so extremely poor and no government framework existed to protect the worker from being exploited by big business. In forcing gov't reform and improving conditions for the workers THE UNION as a CONCEPT succeeded handily. But see when things got better for the workers and they started turning away from THE UNION because it had served its purpose, the people in power at THE UNION saw that power eroding so they fabricated and contrived ways to keep themselves in power. Now, rather than protecting the worker THE UNION had originally form to protect, it instead exploits the said worker to further its own agenda as an ORGANIZATION. Note the difference between CONCEPT and ORGANIZATION.

Do you understand that just because you are hired and that you hold a job, that does not mean that the world will never change and it does not mean the job is yours to keep forever? Further, do you also understand that the condition of you having a job in the first place, because you do not contribute to the company in an intellectual capacity, is dependent on the company being in need of your labor and on being able to afford it? Finally, do you understand that without the company that employs you and your union, there can be no union? If you as a union laborer and your superiors as the union brain-trust understand all those things, how can you continue to ask to be payed more and more for what is done better by robots which don't require a pention plan once they're retired?

The position of THE UNION today is that the company or "BIG BUSINESS" that THE UNION has a strangle hold on isn't allowed to make a profit without it being completely disbursed among the people who are the easiest to replace. And considering that the world doesn't change so the company doesn't need to spend money on future product development and it will NEVER be the case that a company that usually posts profits will EVER be in trouble*, THE UNION can continue to ask for more as it isn't the union's concer whether the very company that employs it survives or not.

BRILLIANT!





*sarcasm.

 

Unions have a bad image because only the most naive, ignorant baffoon would defend unions. I've worked union and I never realized how pathetic, ridiculous, and asinine they truly were until I was forced to join them to work for a certain company. Do you think unions are bad because they're socialist, lazy, and unmotivated? You haven't seen anything til you've been 'among' them. I dont recommend it to anyone.

This article is basically calling US Marines SLABS.

 

Are you a Union official or just blind? In the plant I am in, the highest paid people are the union officials. Why? Because most are dishonest thieves. They have themselves clocked in for hours they do not work, the appointed H&S reps work six or seven days a week even when there is absolutley no work for them to do, etc...One time when I was working a Sunday with a total of 5 hourly workers on the plant floor, we had a false emergency alarm go off. Well, when everyone came to see what the issue was, there were more UAW representitives and appointees than regular hourly workers, all raping the company for double time.

I'm well aware that they union is good for the average worker and that the reason the current contract is such a sad joke is because the company allowed it to get that way (eventhough it was through fear of costly strikes), but unless you are one of the union fat cats, how can you point out problems with the government and yet turn such a blind eye to the UAW?