|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 28, 2010 7:50:53 GMT -8
If true, the SEIU incident you refer to would be wrong as well. But, I haven't seen that video. The link is in the Davdesid post above. Are you telling me you did not bother to look at the evidence presented before making a comment? Are you not somewhat appalled at the fact that neither of these reprehensible incidents would have happened without Moveon.org and/or SEIU initiated action? All the video showed was a bunch of people milling around. Although early in the video it did look like a white man spit on a black man wearing a SEIU tee shirt. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 8:34:44 GMT -8
This was awhile ago. I can find that two people were charged and court date set for last Spring. Anyone know the outcome? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 28, 2010 13:02:29 GMT -8
If true, the SEIU incident you refer to would be wrong as well. But, I haven't seen that video. The link is in the Davdesid post above. Are you telling me you did not bother to look at the evidence presented before making a comment? Are you not somewhat appalled at the fact that neither of these reprehensible incidents would have happened without Moveon.org and/or SEIU initiated action? I could not make much out of the video, so I just don't know. It was a group of men, one of whom was straddled and kicking. I saw an SEIU guy rubbing his shoulder. The video of the head kicking was pretty clear. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 14:46:00 GMT -8
The link is in the Davdesid post above. Are you telling me you did not bother to look at the evidence presented before making a comment? Are you not somewhat appalled at the fact that neither of these reprehensible incidents would have happened without Moveon.org and/or SEIU initiated action? I could not make much out of the video, so I just don't know. It was a group of men, one of whom was straddled and kicking. I saw an SEIU guy rubbing his shoulder. The video of the head kicking was pretty clear. There are two things that you could make it clearer to me how you roll. (1) Did you look at both videos before commenting? (2) Do you realize that neither incident would have happened if the left wing folks from Moveon.org and Seiu had not sent their gang of trouble makers into those events? What happens in both videos is pretty clear to me, but what created the climate for those unfortunate events is more than just pretty clear. Lefties throw a bomb in a crowed room and wonder why people get injured. Pretty sad statement on the desperation of the Democrats and their thug supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 30, 2010 18:23:26 GMT -8
I could not make much out of the video, so I just don't know. It was a group of men, one of whom was straddled and kicking. I saw an SEIU guy rubbing his shoulder. The video of the head kicking was pretty clear. There are two things that you could make it clearer to me how you roll. (1) Did you look at both videos before commenting? (2) Do you realize that neither incident would have happened if the left wing folks from Moveon.org and Seiu had not sent their gang of trouble makers into those events? What happens in both videos is pretty clear to me, but what created the climate for those unfortunate events is more than just pretty clear. Lefties throw a bomb in a crowed room and wonder why people get injured. Pretty sad statement on the desperation of the Democrats and their thug supporters. I was mildly put off by the way you put your questions. However, I saw the second video after you pointed it out. I do not read every post carefully, I save that effort for work and other important activities. And, I often find a bias in the links offered by some on this board. I did not come to any conclusion before I saw the video you pointed out, but when I watched it the circumstances were equivocal. The head stomping of the woman was clear. Gang of troublemakers? I do not think that visiting an opponent and exercising free speech rights is necessarily thuggish. But, I did not see enough context to draw that conclusion in either video. I would really like to know why you think unions, exercising the same self interests as corporations, are not entitled to be assertive in their own interest? Please explain to me why corporations can be assertive but unions cannot be. Corporations and their officers certainly are assertive. Unions negotiate with corporate officers. Are you saying that union leaders fool the corporate geniuses? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 31, 2010 7:13:55 GMT -8
There are two things that you could make it clearer to me how you roll. (1) Did you look at both videos before commenting? (2) Do you realize that neither incident would have happened if the left wing folks from Moveon.org and Seiu had not sent their gang of trouble makers into those events? What happens in both videos is pretty clear to me, but what created the climate for those unfortunate events is more than just pretty clear. Lefties throw a bomb in a crowed room and wonder why people get injured. Pretty sad statement on the desperation of the Democrats and their thug supporters. I was mildly put off by the way you put your questions. However, I saw the second video after you pointed it out. I do not read every post carefully, I save that effort for work and other important activities. And, I often find a bias in the links offered by some on this board. I did not come to any conclusion before I saw the video you pointed out, but when I watched it the circumstances were equivocal. The head stomping of the woman was clear. Gang of troublemakers? I do not think that visiting an opponent and exercising free speech rights is necessarily thuggish. But, I did not see enough context to draw that conclusion in either video. I would really like to know why you think unions, exercising the same self interests as corporations, are not entitled to be assertive in their own interest? Please explain to me why corporations can be assertive but unions cannot be. Corporations and their officers certainly are assertive. Unions negotiate with corporate officers. Are you saying that union leaders fool the corporate geniuses? I think you said you commented with out looking at the things you were commenting upon. I will agree with your assertion that unions and business have the same rights. Where we have a little problem is on how they actually operate. I have never seen a business take shareholder money and put it to work in a manner that was not in the best interest of those shareholders. I have, however, witnessed unions taking dues and putting them to work in political campaigns in manners that do not align with their membership and without their blessings. Both are active in politics for sure, but even those on the left should be able to see a difference in how they operate. Unions pay for thugs to do dirty work. You can differ on the goals of both groups, but only one operates on the murky fringe of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 31, 2010 7:29:43 GMT -8
I was mildly put off by the way you put your questions. However, I saw the second video after you pointed it out. I do not read every post carefully, I save that effort for work and other important activities. And, I often find a bias in the links offered by some on this board. I did not come to any conclusion before I saw the video you pointed out, but when I watched it the circumstances were equivocal. The head stomping of the woman was clear. Gang of troublemakers? I do not think that visiting an opponent and exercising free speech rights is necessarily thuggish. But, I did not see enough context to draw that conclusion in either video. I would really like to know why you think unions, exercising the same self interests as corporations, are not entitled to be assertive in their own interest? Please explain to me why corporations can be assertive but unions cannot be. Corporations and their officers certainly are assertive. Unions negotiate with corporate officers. Are you saying that union leaders fool the corporate geniuses? I think you said you commented with out looking at the things you were commenting upon. I will agree with your assertion that unions and business have the same rights. Where we have a little problem is on how they actually operate. I have never seen a business take shareholder money and put it to work in a manner that was not in the best interest of those shareholders. I have, however, witnessed unions taking dues and putting them to work in political campaigns in manners that do not align with their membership and without their blessings. Both are active in politics for sure, but even those on the left should be able to see a difference in how they operate. Unions pay for thugs to do dirty work. You can differ on the goals of both groups, but only one operates on the murky fringe of the law. This is what I said: "If true, the SEIU incident you refer to would be wrong as well. But, I haven't seen that video. "Corporations have contributed a substantial sum to Republican causes. I own shares in many of those companies. I don't like Republican causes. So, as a shareholder they are acting in contrary to my interests are they not? If you do not think that corporations live on the murky fringe of the law as well, I would say that you are uninformed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 31, 2010 7:40:10 GMT -8
I think you said you commented with out looking at the things you were commenting upon. I will agree with your assertion that unions and business have the same rights. Where we have a little problem is on how they actually operate. I have never seen a business take shareholder money and put it to work in a manner that was not in the best interest of those shareholders. I have, however, witnessed unions taking dues and putting them to work in political campaigns in manners that do not align with their membership and without their blessings. Both are active in politics for sure, but even those on the left should be able to see a difference in how they operate. Unions pay for thugs to do dirty work. You can differ on the goals of both groups, but only one operates on the murky fringe of the law. This is what I said: "If true, the SEIU incident you refer to would be wrong as well. But, I haven't seen that video. "Corporations have contributed a substantial sum to Republican causes. I own shares in many of those companies. I don't like Republican causes. So, as a shareholder they are acting in contrary to my interests are they not? If you do not think that corporations live on the murky fringe of the law as well, I would say that you are uninformed. After I posted that, I knew what the response would be and I agree to a point. I guess you could sell your shares, but can you keep your job and stop paying union dues? Do you see Sempra or Dominion Resources hiring and busing in thugs to do their dirty work? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 31, 2010 12:19:48 GMT -8
I was mildly put off by the way you put your questions. However, I saw the second video after you pointed it out. I do not read every post carefully, I save that effort for work and other important activities. And, I often find a bias in the links offered by some on this board. I did not come to any conclusion before I saw the video you pointed out, but when I watched it the circumstances were equivocal. The head stomping of the woman was clear. Gang of troublemakers? I do not think that visiting an opponent and exercising free speech rights is necessarily thuggish. But, I did not see enough context to draw that conclusion in either video. I would really like to know why you think unions, exercising the same self interests as corporations, are not entitled to be assertive in their own interest? Please explain to me why corporations can be assertive but unions cannot be. Corporations and their officers certainly are assertive. Unions negotiate with corporate officers. Are you saying that union leaders fool the corporate geniuses? I think you said you commented with out looking at the things you were commenting upon. I will agree with your assertion that unions and business have the same rights. Where we have a little problem is on how they actually operate. I have never seen a business take shareholder money and put it to work in a manner that was not in the best interest of those shareholders. I have, however, witnessed unions taking dues and putting them to work in political campaigns in manners that do not align with their membership and without their blessings. Both are active in politics for sure, but even those on the left should be able to see a difference in how they operate. Unions pay for thugs to do dirty work. You can differ on the goals of both groups, but only one operates on the murky fringe of the law. Do you really believe that every shareholder agrees with the campaign contributions that the corporations make? I do not think either corporations, nor unions should make any contributions to political stuff. That should be up to their shareholders and members to do for themselves. As to whether executives always use corporate money for the benefit of shareholders I give you Enron as an example of screwing the shareholders, and employees, for the benefit of the executives. The list of executives that have used corporate money for their own at the expense of shareholders is quite long. I know they taught us in business schoold that we should always put the shreholders first, but that is not the real world. One of my clients was an executive at a worldwide computer firm. He wanted to discuss with me whether he should pay off his mortgage. I said we need to look at your interest rate and then compare it to the lost oppurtunity cost of using the cash on hand. I said it is like when your company needs to decide whether or not to invest profits back into the company or pay a dividend. It depends on what the return will be on the investment. He laughed and said I know that is what the textbooks say, but believe me we can work the numbers to always reinvest. We don't pay dividends. That was an "aha" moment for me. As to thugs. They come in all stripes. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 31, 2010 16:24:06 GMT -8
I think you said you commented with out looking at the things you were commenting upon. I will agree with your assertion that unions and business have the same rights. Where we have a little problem is on how they actually operate. I have never seen a business take shareholder money and put it to work in a manner that was not in the best interest of those shareholders. I have, however, witnessed unions taking dues and putting them to work in political campaigns in manners that do not align with their membership and without their blessings. Both are active in politics for sure, but even those on the left should be able to see a difference in how they operate. Unions pay for thugs to do dirty work. You can differ on the goals of both groups, but only one operates on the murky fringe of the law. Do you really believe that every shareholder agrees with the campaign contributions that the corporations make? I do not think either corporations, nor unions should make any contributions to political stuff. That should be up to their shareholders and members to do for themselves. As to whether executives always use corporate money for the benefit of shareholders I give you Enron as an example of screwing the shareholders, and employees, for the benefit of the executives. The list of executives that have used corporate money for their own at the expense of shareholders is quite long. I know they taught us in business schoold that we should always put the shreholders first, but that is not the real world. One of my clients was an executive at a worldwide computer firm. He wanted to discuss with me whether he should pay off his mortgage. I said we need to look at your interest rate and then compare it to the lost oppurtunity cost of using the cash on hand. I said it is like when your company needs to decide whether or not to invest profits back into the company or pay a dividend. It depends on what the return will be on the investment. He laughed and said I know that is what the textbooks say, but believe me we can work the numbers to always reinvest. We don't pay dividends. That was an "aha" moment for me. As to thugs. They come in all stripes. I agree with most of what you say, but you are ignoring an important part of the question. You can sell your shares but can you opt out of paying union dues? I would have to hear the tone of what your coorporate officer had to say. Lots of us prefer companies that grow shareholder value by reinvesting rather than pay dividends. I like dividends myself, but there are people who would rather defer taxes till the investment is sold. If you are saying he was being aware of self serving dealings on the part of corporate officers, that is another issue. Those things do happen as you point out. Where do you think it happens more often? Corporations or unions? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 31, 2010 17:48:12 GMT -8
Corporations. They have far more money to screw around with.
He was not saying that the execs were trying to take the money for themselves. He was saying that they would work the numbers so that the investment always look better than paying dividends.
Can the union opt out of representing them if they were not to pay dues?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 1, 2010 11:25:12 GMT -8
Corporations. They have far more money to screw around with. He was not saying that the execs were trying to take the money for themselves. He was saying that they would work the numbers so that the investment always look better than paying dividends. Can the union opt out of representing them if they were not to pay dues? Corporations do have more money but unions are much more corrupt. Your last question would have been better stated by including if union membership is a condition of employment. I know at one time you had to join the retail clerks union to work at Safeway more than a few months. It is a good question however. |
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Nov 5, 2010 20:37:13 GMT -8
I watched the video of this incident. While one Tea Party coward held the woman down another Tea Party coward stomped on her head. This incident illustrates how the Tea Party will not tolerate dissent. Isn't the word "Stomped" a bit over the top? If her head had been "Stomped" she never could have done the interview that followed the dust up. Dude was way wrong, his ass was fired. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 6, 2010 8:05:21 GMT -8
Do you really believe that every shareholder agrees with the campaign contributions that the corporations make? I do not think either corporations, nor unions should make any contributions to political stuff. That should be up to their shareholders and members to do for themselves. As to whether executives always use corporate money for the benefit of shareholders I give you Enron as an example of screwing the shareholders, and employees, for the benefit of the executives. The list of executives that have used corporate money for their own at the expense of shareholders is quite long. I know they taught us in business schoold that we should always put the shreholders first, but that is not the real world. One of my clients was an executive at a worldwide computer firm. He wanted to discuss with me whether he should pay off his mortgage. I said we need to look at your interest rate and then compare it to the lost oppurtunity cost of using the cash on hand. I said it is like when your company needs to decide whether or not to invest profits back into the company or pay a dividend. It depends on what the return will be on the investment. He laughed and said I know that is what the textbooks say, but believe me we can work the numbers to always reinvest. We don't pay dividends. That was an "aha" moment for me. As to thugs. They come in all stripes. I agree with most of what you say, but you are ignoring an important part of the question. You can sell your shares but can you opt out of paying union dues? I would have to hear the tone of what your coorporate officer had to say. Lots of us prefer companies that grow shareholder value by reinvesting rather than pay dividends. I like dividends myself, but there are people who would rather defer taxes till the investment is sold. If you are saying he was being aware of self serving dealings on the part of corporate officers, that is another issue. Those things do happen as you point out. Where do you think it happens more often? Corporations or unions? It all comes down to whether you think the dues are a fair trade for what you get in return. You may not be able to stop paying the dues, but you can do the equivalent of selling your stock, and that is finding a non-union employer. I don't see that happening often, so those members must be getting something for their money. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 6, 2010 8:06:38 GMT -8
Corporations. They have far more money to screw around with. He was not saying that the execs were trying to take the money for themselves. He was saying that they would work the numbers so that the investment always look better than paying dividends. Can the union opt out of representing them if they were not to pay dues? Corporations do have more money but unions are much more corrupt. Your last question would have been better stated by including if union membership is a condition of employment. I know at one time you had to join the retail clerks union to work at Safeway more than a few months. It is a good question however.
That is a wholly unsupported accusation. Please prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 6, 2010 12:58:06 GMT -8
Corporations do have more money but unions are much more corrupt. Your last question would have been better stated by including if union membership is a condition of employment. I know at one time you had to join the retail clerks union to work at Safeway more than a few months. It is a good question however.
That is a wholly unsupported accusation. Please prove it. Do I have to go beyond referencing Teamsters and SEIU? I think not! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 6, 2010 13:53:13 GMT -8
"Corporations do have more money but unions are much more corrupt."
That is a wholly unsupported accusation. Please prove it. Do I have to go beyond referencing Teamsters and SEIU? I think not! But. It is ok for Enron to cheat people, ok for Goldman Saks, ok for the banks, ok for Wall street, ok for Exxon, ok for Ruprickt Murdlock, etc. . . . Naming two unions is not the same as proving they are corrupt. You just don't like them because they seek the same advantage that corporations do. The only thing is the unions have beaten corporations into abject submission and are in fact plotting their ruin from a position of growing numbers and power as we speak, right?  You like corporations and you don't like people who populate unions. OK You dislike your fellow citizens and think them corrupt and prefer Corporate officers. OK. You have your Bo[eh]er now so be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 7, 2010 8:50:48 GMT -8
Do I have to go beyond referencing Teamsters and SEIU? I think not! But. It is ok for Enron to cheat people, ok for Goldman Saks, ok for the banks, ok for Wall street, ok for Exxon, ok for Ruprickt Murdlock, etc. . . . Naming two unions is not the same as proving they are corrupt. You just don't like them because they seek the same advantage that corporations do. The only thing is the unions have beaten corporations into abject submission and are in fact plotting their ruin from a position of growing numbers and power as we speak, right? You like corporations and you don't like people who populate unions. OK You dislike your fellow citizens and think them corrupt and prefer Corporate officers. OK. You have your Bo[eh]er now so be happy. There have been consequences for the acts of Enron and Goldman Saks. People are in jail. Just what are the consequences for unions using dues to support causes and candidates against the will of their membership? We would have little to quibble about if unions would just about always act in the interests of their membership. The stories that have just endings like Jimmy Hoffa are few and far between. That might not even be as we think. Could Jimmy Hoffa be on the beach at Charlie Rangell's vacation spot living it up? |
|
You like corporations and you don't like people who populate unions. OK You dislike your fellow citizens and think them corrupt and prefer Corporate officers. OK. You have your Bo[eh]er now so be happy.