Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

!BIG LABOR BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Hanson

unread,
Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96
to
BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

by Carl Rowan

WASHINGTON --- The biggest political news of this
week was not of Bob Dole's triumph over Pat Buchanan in
California. It was of the AFL-CIO endorsing the
re-election of President Clinton, with plans to spend $35
million to bring that about.
This Big Labor intervention may not restore the
great Democratic coalition of the 1950s and 60s, but a
labor union political onslaught could all but guarantee Mr.
Clinton a second term, especially with polled organized
laborers now favoring Clinton over Dole by a 3-to-1
margin.

A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the
AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control
of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less
than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why
House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta
be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor
and the Democratic Party.
The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
commercials, pay for political education and
get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
by narrow margins two years ago.
AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney refers to
these new congressmen as "right-wing fanatics who have
seized the Capitol," so there is no reason to assume that his
unions plan what Dole And Gingrich would call
even-handedness. Sweeney & Colleagues are out to make
working men and women awesome forces again at the
polling places of America.
But how awesome? Sweeney faces the fact thFrom: rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.activism
Subject: !BIG LABOR BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 01:03:23 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

by Carl Rowan

WASHINGTON --- The biggest political news of this
week was not of Bob Dole's triumph over Pat Buchanan in
California. It was of the AFL-CIO endorsing the
re-election of President Clinton, with plans to spend $35
million to bring that about.
This Big Labor intervention may not restore the
great Democratic coalition of the 1950s and 60s, but a
labor union political onslaught could all but guarantee Mr.
Clinton a second term, especially with polled organized
laborers now favoring Clinton over Dole by a 3-to-1
margin.

A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the
AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control
of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less
than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why
House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta
be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor
and the Democratic Party.
The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
commercials, pay for political education and
get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
by narrow margins two years ago.
AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney refers to
these new congressmen as "right-wing fanatics who have
seized the Capitol," so there is no reason to assume that his
unions plan what Dole And Gingrich would call
even-handedness. Sweeney & Colleagues are out to make
working men and women awesome forces again at the
polling places of America.
But how awesome? Sweeney faces the fact thtion of this week is:
"How many Americans will now follow a labor union
leader?"

NORTH AMERICAN SYNDICATE, INC. 1996

______________________________________

RH

John Q. Public

unread,
Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96
to
Hanson wrote:
>
> BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS
>
> by Carl Rowan
>

Yes, Carl Rowan. I remember him.

A staunch advocate of gun control for others,
he chased off a burglar with an *illegal*
handgun in the District of Columbia.

Rowans's support of gun control might
be seen as hypocritical, much like
Dianne "Concealed Carry" Feinstein
is viewed as hypocritical, but this
is due to an essential misunderstanding
by the Dumb Arkies who Rowan and Feinstein
fear, and whose behavior must be controlled
by their elitist betters in government.

<whitewater ng snipped>

Woody Emanuel

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:

>by Carl Rowan

> The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>commercials, pay for political education and
>get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
>political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>by narrow margins two years ago.


Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?

Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be consistent
and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
Hanson can.

Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'

>RH

Big O

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <4lha5k$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, rha...@ix.netcom.com
(Hanson) wrote:

=| A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the
=| AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control
=| of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less
=| than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why
=| House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta
=| be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor
=| and the Democratic Party.
=| The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
=| members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
=| allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
=| commercials, pay for political education and
=| get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
=| political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
=| by narrow margins two years ago.

Labor unions use forced dues to support politics that not all of the rank
and file agree with. If business did the very same with their employees
the liberals would be screaming bloody murder about it.

Where unions do not use forced dues to raise money for their PACs the rank
and file members of the unions contribute very little to those PACs, thus
showing that the rank and file do not support the unions PACs.

--
"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that
life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that
caused men to make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <DqHBL...@world.std.com>, Woody Emanuel <b...@world.std.com> wrote:
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>
****************** Deleted ******************

>
>
>Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you

Are we to take it, that Woody Emannual supports the involuntary
contributions most people are forced to make to right wing politicians
via the large interlocking corporate world and their lobbying campaigns.
It is near impossible to live in the world without directly or
indirenctly supporting these often self serving companies who pour huge
amounts of money into the political system to keep parties and policies
in place directly counter the interests of their customers.


Campaign reform now. Get Dole and Newt to pull their thumbs out
and act. They have broken faith with the American people long enough on
this. End corporate welfare now.

"The problem is not that there is too much money in our political system,
there is not enough money in our political system."
- Newt Gingrich.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!


MartinMcP

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

So long as the White House Noise & Gas Co. continues to start threads
crossposted to all usenet political groups in an attempt to disrupt their
viability, lets have another look at one of their favorite episodes of
Clinton Mystery Theatre------

White Houser Productions Presents:

Clinton Mystery Theatre

Executive Producer: R. Hater Hansoon

Episode #5

Tonight's episode: The lying Secret
Serviceman.

This was a tough case for the Loyal Staff.
They had to determine how it was that the
Forces of the Right were able to get a
uniformed White House Secret Service agent,
Henry O'Neil, to lie to the Congress, the
Right Wing Independent Counsel, and the FBI.

This is what they discovered after a little
poking around.

Henry O'Neil likes to have coffee at a
certain coffee bar some blocks from the White
House. One afternoon, before his shift at the
White House, O'Neil was having a cup of joe
and reading the newspaper. He felt a presence
next to him.

He turned and saw Ultra Right Wing Ex-Vice
President Dan Quayle staring blankly at him.

Quayle reached out and grabbed O'Neil's
adam's apple between his powerful thumb and
forefinger and squeezed it to the crushing
point.

"Do you know what you are going to tell the
FBI and everybody else about what you saw the
night Foster died?" Quayle snapped at O'Neil.

"No," O'Neil squeaked.

"You are going to tell them you saw Maggie
Williams carry a stack of files out of the
White House counsel's office. Do you
understand?"

"I can't do that," O'Neil said, "I'm a Secret
Service agent. I can't lie to the FBI or
perjure myself."

Quayle squeezed O'Neil's adam's apple so hard
that the pain dropped him to one knee.

"What did you say?" Quayle barked at O'Neil.

"I said sure," O'Neil answered. "I'll lie to
Congress, to the FBI, to anybody you want me
to, Dan. You know I believe in the work of
The Forces of the Right Wing."

"That's better," Quayle said. "Now clean
yourself up and get busy working on your
story, and make sure you don't change it.
Understand?"

"Yes, I got it. You don't have to worry about
me," O'Neil said in a near begging tone.

And that's what the Loyal Staff discovered
when it went to work on the case of the Lying
Secret Service Agent. Will the Forces of the
Right Wing stop at nothing?


Tim Watson

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to


Just one more reason Kenneth Starr must be stopped in his tracks, and
forced to resign.


Hanson

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

mart...@aol.com (MartinMcP) wrote:

>So long as the White House .......

BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

by Carl Rowan

WASHINGTON --- The biggest political news of this


week was not of Bob Dole's triumph over Pat Buchanan in
California. It was of the AFL-CIO endorsing the
re-election of President Clinton, with plans to spend $35
million to bring that about.
This Big Labor intervention may not restore the
great Democratic coalition of the 1950s and 60s, but a
labor union political onslaught could all but guarantee Mr.
Clinton a second term, especially with polled organized
laborers now favoring Clinton over Dole by a 3-to-1
margin.

A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the


AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control

of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less

than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why

House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta

be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor

and the Democratic Party.


The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its

members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will

allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV

commercials, pay for political education and

get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the

political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won

by narrow margins two years ago.

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney refers to
these new congressmen as "right-wing fanatics who have
seized the Capitol," so there is no reason to assume that his
unions plan what Dole And Gingrich would call
even-handedness. Sweeney & Colleagues are out to make
working men and women awesome forces again at the
polling places of America.

But how awesome? Sweeney faces the fact that
for a generation organized labor in America has been
pathetic to tragic. The AFL-CIO slept through the twilight
of its late leader, George Meany. Snoozed during the 20
years when labor's share of the U.S. workforce dwindled
from 27 percent in 1976 to less than 15 percent now.
Those just happen to be the years when the
Democratic Party declined, partly because unionized
workers were swayed by hot-button GOP rhetoric
appealing to racism, and to demagoguery about school
prayer, abortion, crime. Worker solidarity was all but
forgotten.

UNIONS HAD SUCCEEDED in winning enough pay
and perks to provoke some workers into believing that they
were Republicans. That must be a comfortable feeling.
Until you discover that the real, rich Republicans you've
joined are downsizing the places where you work, or
shipping them overseas, while they raise their salaries and
bonuses obscenely.
Have the 40 percent of union members who
defected to the Republican Party finally wised up? A
working man getting into a country club is an intoxication
that rarely wears off. Gingrich is begging workers not to let
Sweeney force them to cough up 15 cents a month for the
AFT-CIO to use to defeat Republicans.
Don't be surprised to see legal and other efforts to
block the AFL-CIO political assessment.
There remain fundamental disagreements between
labor unions and the Clinton administration, particularly the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But
this week's AFL-CIO decision to spend $35 million to
re-elect Clinton says that, such differences aside, the great
mass of union people see peril in both Dole and Gingrich's
"Contract with America."
During the Reagan and Bush years we got a sea
change in American politics. Laborers, ethnics, the devout
religious, some Jews and a brigade of new-fringe blacks
drifted right, right and far-right. Right into a dangerous
American morass.
Now here comes long-somnolent Big Labor, trying
to show them the way out. The question of this week is:

Woody Emanuel

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) writes:

>In article <DqHBL...@world.std.com>, Woody Emanuel <b...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>
>>Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>>members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>
>Are we to take it, that Woody Emannual supports the involuntary
>contributions most people are forced to make to right wing politicians
>via the large interlocking corporate world and their lobbying campaigns.
>It is near impossible to live in the world without directly or
>indirenctly supporting these often self serving companies who pour huge
>amounts of money into the political system to keep parties and policies
>in place directly counter the interests of their customers.


Mr. SubGenius, we know its hard for Liberals to answer direct questions
but why don't you give it a try. My question does not presume to support
right wing tactics or corporate welfare; it is direct question to a Liberal
about Liberal beliefs. It is answerable on its own merits and Liberals
should be able to justify the AFL-CIO's actions on principle or condemn
it without resorting to what the "other side" does or doesn't do.

This is a typical Hanson tactic. He has a serious inability to
answer questions about modern Liberalism directly. Maybe you can help him.

It's really not so hard, particulary if you can support the AFL-CIO's
actions on principle.

MartinMcP

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

That White House Noise & Gas Co., run by Carville, Begala, and Grunwald
and being scheduled right now for a commemorative picnic in Ft. Marcy
Park, loves to crosspost to all political groups on usenet. Do you think
they do it in an attempt to make usenet political discussion non-viable
for newcomers to the internet? Do you think it started the day Clinton was
declared "roadkill on the information superhighway?" Can you name all the
worker bees who are doing it?

In any case, as a reward for their efforts, here's their very special
favorite episode of Clinton Mystery Theatre------

White Houser Productions Presents:

Clinton Mystery Theatre

Executive Producer: R. Hater Hansoon

Episode #9

TONIGHT: A SPECIAL PRESENTATION
(to be aired July 20, 1996)

"The Ghost of Fort Marcy Future"

Oh! What a terrible day it was for the
President. He had just taped the Larry King
show. After the taping he was informed that
Paul Begala, his trusted political operative,
had been found dead in Ft. Marcy Park, a
victim of suicide. His body was discovered
just yards from where Vince Foster's had been
found three years earlier.

Aides said that upon hearing the news the
President's eyes glazed over and he muttered:
"We may never know why."

The Loyal Staff was in a terrible state. "We
should have seen the signs," said one. "It
was the pressure of being investigated by the
Forces of the Extreme Right Wing," said
another.

And it might have been just that. Paul Begala
was being investigated, all right. The Far
Right Wing Extreme had put a price on his
head. They were out to get him for having
converted the political forums on the
internet from horrible enclaves of anti-
Clinton sentiment into gleaming pro-Clinton
town meetings.

Some said--not the Loyal Staff, never the
Loyal Staff--that Begala had gone too far,
recruiting enthusiasts around the country to
gently push the Clinton agenda. The Far Right
Wing learned of Paul's enterprising attempts
to re-educate internet denizens about the
Clintons. They charged him with such things
as using the internet to test the White House
orchestrated attack on Far Right Wing
Extremist Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr,
*before* it hit the mainstream media.

"What an outrage! What an accusation! What a
lie! What a typical Far Right Wing Extremist
attempt to distort the truth and damage the
Clinton record," Begala cried out for support
to anyone who would listen. But the most
important ear, the ear of the President, was
not listening this time. Here the President
was rising up in the polls, looking good for
the November election, and one of his so-
called friends goes ahead and does this to
him.

Next thing Paul knew his phone calls to the
President and Mrs. Clinton were not being
returned. But he did arrange to have a sit-
down meeting with the President, to
straighten all these misunderstandings out.
Unfortunately, the meeting was scheduled for
the day after Paul shot himself in the mouth
at Ft. Marcy Park.

The President and the First Lady issued this
statement about Paul Begala's tragic suicide:
"Paul Begala was a wonderful and warm human
being, with all the strengths and weaknesses
of a wonderful warm human being, more than
capable of great successes and wonderful
dismal failures. We will never forget him,
and what he has done for and to us. We wish
him well in his next campaign."

No sooner had these events transpired than
the Ghoulish Monsters of the Far Right Wing
Extremist Conservatives had begun their sick
graverobbing. When the FBI pathologist who
performed the autopsy on Begala found that he
had been dead for at least three hours when
he shot himself, none other than Extremist
Senator Jesse Helms, the King of the Right
Wing, tried to make something of it on the
Senate floor.

This is exactly why all of the real reports
on Vince had to be kept quiet, to prevent
this kind of ghoulish speculation. (Thank God
the Loyal Staff had discovered that the
Forces of the Far Right had changed Vince
into a clean white shirt after his tragic
death, so that the absence of disgorged blood
across his chest would make it look like his
heart had already stopped beating when he
shot himself. Otherwise, how would the Loyal
Staff have known that they pulled the same
trick on Paul.)

And when word got out that Begala was last
seen out for a drive down Chain Bridge Road
with his pal Bruce Lindsey on the afternoon
he died, the Forces of the Far Right began
their ghoulish talk of murder, just like they
did after Vince was murdered.

Thank God for the Loyal Staff. They serve
their President well. And they will carry on
even without their friend Paul Begala, after
his tragic suicide in Fort Marcy Park. But it
is such a shame that it all came to an end
before Paul was able to reach a
reconciliation with the President.

Khufu

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to Woody Emanuel

Woody Emanuel wrote:
>
> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>
> >by Carl Rowan
>
> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
> >commercials, pay for political education and
> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>

Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.


> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you

> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?

Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power. Who cares
if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.


>
> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be consistent
> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
> Hanson can.

And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared, just listen to their
responses.


>
> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>
> >RH

Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at risk.

Khufu

Zepp

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

In article <johannp-2604...@news.aimnet.com>,

joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) wrote:

>Labor unions use forced dues to support politics that not all of the rank
>and file agree with. If business did the very same with their employees
>the liberals would be screaming bloody murder about it.

Claiming the monies going to PACs are "forced" is a flat-out lie. Any
union member may request a refund of a percentage commensurate with the
amount going to political activities, and that member will get it, no
questions asked.

BTW, how much money are the Koalition Kruches donating to the GOP. Are
the congregations given any say, or is this gawd's will so shut up?

>
>Where unions do not use forced dues to raise money for their PACs the
rank
>and file members of the unions contribute very little to those PACs, thus
>showing that the rank and file do not support the unions PACs.
>

A nasty little bit of misleading statement. In such cases, the members
aren't asked if they want to contribute. It doesn't even come up. Some
contribute. Some don't. It's a bit like saying that because Baptists
don't send money to the Vatican (or Newt), they don't believe in Jesus.

***************************************************************************
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the
earth belongs in usufruct to the living': that the dead have neither
powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases
to be, and reverts to the society."

Letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789, from Thomas Jefferson,
which shows pretty clearly what Jefferson thought of Libertarian
Property Rights.
***************************************************************************

Woody Emanuel

unread,
Apr 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/30/96
to

Khufu <ro...@sonic.net> writes:

>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>
>> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>
>> >by Carl Rowan
>>
>> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>> >commercials, pay for political education and
>> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
>> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>>

>Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.

Yes, so they can expose themselves for what they are.

>> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
>> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
>> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?

>Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power.

A perfect example of nonsense logic. If the "opposition" does it, we
can do it, therefore it's right.

>Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.

Even a Liberal would not support such an abhorent statement. Do you
realize what you just said?

>>
>> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be consistent
>> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
>> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
>> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
>> Hanson can.

>And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared,
>just listen to their responses.

Like Hanson, you won't answer the question.


>> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
>> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>>
>> >RH

>Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at
risk.

Increasingly so, with people who think like you.

>Khufu

Wayne Mann

unread,
Apr 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/30/96
to

Khufu <ro...@sonic.net> wrote:

Jim Quinn who hosts "Quinn in the Morning" radio show on WRRK 97 FM
in Pittsburgh, PA announced that Strategic Investment and James
Davidson
will hold a press conference at 10:00 am, Wed. 10/25/95 in the Crystal
Room of the Willard Hotel, 14th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., Washington,
D.C.

The subject of this news conference, according to his "Deep Throat"
source in D.C. will be testimony by three highly respected handwriting
experts that the Vincent Foster "suicide note" is a FORGERY--a FAKE!

The White House is reportedly in panic mode over this news
conference.
However, the mainstream media has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to
virtual mountains of overwhelming evidence of massive cover-up in the
matter of Foster's death and investigation. Why should they pay this
any heed? Quinn reported that there might be a "media hook" in this
story which may force the media to sit up and take notice. He said
that
one of these three experts is someone from Bill Clinton's past--his
university days, say, in Oxford perhaps. While "Deep Throat" did not
reveal if this person was a student or member of the faculty, he did
imply it was someone of stature and not to be treated lightly by the
media.

Quinn also revealed that 2 prosecutors on Kenneth Starr's staff have
2 witnesses from Ft. Marcy Park and 2 Emergency Medical people who
will
testify that they saw Vince Foster's briefcase in his car in the Ft.
Marcy
parking lot on the day he died, July 20, 1993. That same briefcase
mysteriously
sprouted wings and appeared later in Foster's office at the White
House. Six
days later Bernard Nussbaum miraculously "discovered" 27 pieces of the
so-called suicide note at the bottom of this briefcase.

Anyone living in the D.C. area might want to stop by the Willard
Hotel
on Wed. at 10:00 am and report back on what the press conference was
like.
In particular, were there any members of the PRESS present?
Regards, Bev S. (a Quinn fan)


>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>
>> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>
>> >by Carl Rowan
>>
>> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>> >commercials, pay for political education and
>> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
>> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>>

>Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.

>> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
>> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
>> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?

>Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power. Who cares

>if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.
>>

>> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be consistent
>> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
>> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
>> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
>> Hanson can.

>And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared, just listen to their
>responses.
>>

>> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
>> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>>
>> >RH

>Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at risk.

>Khufu


\\/ayne //\ann


"A politician who commends himself as 'caring' and
'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's
charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing
to do good with other peoples' money." - PJ O'Rourke

Wayne Mann

unread,
Apr 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/30/96
to

ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:

========
The attack on Jean Lewis
Washington Times, editorial, 12/1/95

The sneak attack on former Resolution Trust Corp.
investigator L. Jean Lewis by Democrats on the Senate
Whitewater Committee Wednesday (followed by a six-hour
grilling that sent the witness into the hospital,
demonstrates just how desperate supporters of the Clinton
administration have become.

Minority Counsel Richard Ben-Veniste used a line from a
personal letter Ms. Lewis had inadvertently given him access
to to attack the impartiality-- and thus, he and his
employers clearly hoped, the credibility--of her
investigation of Madison Guaranty And Savings and Loan .

It seems that back in 1992, Ms. Lewis wrote a
very long (and very private, one might have thought) letter
to a friend, which was on a computer disk she turned over to
the committee.

In that letter, Ms. Lewis indicated, as an illustrative
comment on a personal problem she was filling her friend in
on, that she didn't buy then-Gov. Bill Clinton's denial of a
12- year affair with Gennifer Flowers.

One might have thought Democrats would be very hesitant
to bring up that very delicate subject. Because, in fact,
it caused Mr. Clinton a great deal of trouble during his
presidential campaign and was never fully put to rest by the
first couple's "adultery interview" on "60 Minutes".

" As it happens, a very large proportion of the country
joined wholeheartedly in Ms. Lewis' assessment that in
refuting Ms. Flowers ' story Mr. Clinton was a "lying
bastard." (Some Americans actually went even further than
Ms. Lewis, holding that the epithet applied in other
contexts besides the Flowers affair--marijuana use, for
example, not to mention the draft.) And Sen. Robert F.
Bennett indicated he'd heard worse comments about Mr.
Clinton from some Democratic colleagues.

The notion that Ms. Lewis' view of Mr. Clinton's
response to Gennifer Flowers' allegations or her opposition
to his political positions somehow ought to have
disqualified her from working on Madison is preposterous.
Ms. Lewis makes no bones about being a conservative
Republican, but she insists she worked all the harder
because of that to remain impartial in her investigation.
Anyway, in the United States, we generally judge people by
the quality of their work, rather than by their political
beliefs or by the contents of their private correspondence.
And try as they mightily have, committee Democrats (and
their minority colleagues on the House Banking Committee
before them) have not managed to pry a disparaging comment
out of Jean Lewis' co-workers or supervisors. All have
agreed, in fact, that she was a diligent, thorough and
careful investigator.

It was that diligent, thorough and careful investigator
who reached the conclusion, as she testified before the
committee, that "Whitewater, a company in which the Clintons
were principals, used kited funds to pay its mortgages,
accounting fees and make unauthorized loans to itself' Her
investigation, furthermore, has been powerfully borne out by
the fact that 12 of 21 counts in Whitewater special
prosecutor Kenneth Starr's indictment of Madison owner --and
Clinton Whitewater partner--James B. McDougal (which also
named Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and McDougal's former
wife, Susan) came from criminal referrals Ms. Lewis wrote.

Clutching at the straw of Ms. Lewis' old, and private,
and utterly irrelevant comment is not going to make those
indictments--or Mr. Starr's continuing investigation of the
tangled web of Whitewater --go away

Wayne Mann

unread,
Apr 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/30/96
to

b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:

========
12/01/95
WASHINGTON

Expressing disbelief that she and her deputy, Michael Johnson, were
unwilling to say they'd made a mistake, Whitewater committee chairman
Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., gave up on his own questioning of the two
witnesses, at one point turning away in disgust and saying ``there's
no
point'' continuing.

Urged by her Justice Department superiors to have nothing to do with a

criminal case that ultimately would touch the president who appointed
her,
the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., stood her ground and rejected

the advice.

It would have been ``premature,'' she said, to take herself out of
Hale's
case before he was even indicted on charges he defrauded the Small
Business Administration of millions of dollars in federally backed
loans.


Casey's refusal to stop Hale's indictment and not try harder in the
few
weeks following her elevation to U.S. attorney to cut a deal for
Hale's
politically sensitive information left a cloud over her office.

Paula Casey has been paying the price for that decision ever since

>Khufu <ro...@sonic.net> writes:

>>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>>
>>> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>>
>>> >by Carl Rowan
>>>
>>> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>>> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>>> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>>> >commercials, pay for political education and
>>> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
>>> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>>> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>>>

>>Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.

>Yes, so they can expose themselves for what they are.

>>> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO


>>> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>>> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
>>> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
>>> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?

>>Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power.

>A perfect example of nonsense logic. If the "opposition" does it, we


>can do it, therefore it's right.

>>Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.

>Even a Liberal would not support such an abhorent statement. Do you


>realize what you just said?

>>>

>>> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be consistent
>>> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
>>> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
>>> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
>>> Hanson can.

>>And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared,
>>just listen to their responses.

>Like Hanson, you won't answer the question.
>

>>> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
>>> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>>>
>>> >RH

>>Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at
>risk.

>Increasingly so, with people who think like you.

>>Khufu


Steven H. Findeiss

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

: > >Carl Rowan column:
: > > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its

: > >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
: > >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
: > >commercials... and drive daggers into the

: > >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
: > >by narrow margins two years ago.

Ronv (Khufu) replied:
: Why is it that when [a labor union] assesses it's members it an
: abuse of power? Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for


: the good of the membership.

"Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined
by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
"assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
"assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
surprised by that?)


Hanson

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:


>Jim Quinn who hosts "Quinn in the Morning" radio show on WRRK 97 FM

**********************************************************

BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

by Carl Rowan

WASHINGTON --- The biggest political news of this
week was not of Bob Dole's triumph over Pat Buchanan in
California. It was of the AFL-CIO endorsing the
re-election of President Clinton, with plans to spend $35
million to bring that about.
This Big Labor intervention may not restore the
great Democratic coalition of the 1950s and 60s, but a
labor union political onslaught could all but guarantee Mr.
Clinton a second term, especially with polled organized
laborers now favoring Clinton over Dole by a 3-to-1
margin.

A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the
AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control
of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less
than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why
House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta
be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor
and the Democratic Party.

The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV

commercials, pay for political education and

get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the


political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
by narrow margins two years ago.

Tim Waldowski *or* Barbara Blackwell

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:

In a recent poll of AFLCIO members:
85% did not know that they could request the refund
77% supported the Contract With America

60% of those union members voted Republican in 1994.

Tim


Michael Williams

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Khufu wrote:

> > Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
> > members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
> > care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
> > under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
> > support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?
>

> Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power. Who cares

> if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.

I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

------
Michael Williams
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu


The Centurion

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <31858B...@sonic.net>, Khufu <ro...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>
>> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>
>> >by Carl Rowan
>>
>> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>> >commercials, pay for political education and
>> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the
>> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>>
>
>Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.
>
>
>> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
>> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
>> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?
>
>Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power.
Who cares
>if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.
>>
>> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be
consistent
>> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
>> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
>> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
>> Hanson can.
>
>And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared, just listen to
their
>responses.
>>
>> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
>> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>>
>> >RH
>
>Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at
risk.
>
>Khufu
Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy
you ARE! Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

btw Learn to EDIT HEADERS dumbass!

--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENT...@hooked.net

Centurion 5

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

cent...@hooked.net (The Centurion) wrote:
: Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
: to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy
: you ARE!

Vice-versy, yes? 8 D

: Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

Heheheh, who is this "We?" 8 0

>btw Learn to EDIT HEADERS dumbass!

Please learn to read, act civil and try not to be anti-social ...And
you know what -our- society/government does with its anti-socs ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Centurion | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
Centurion Chronicles (c) & Web Page | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/> | нлГКнГоГКнГнлГКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлл
Last Updated: 4/28/96 | нлГ Volpus нГоГ Marina нлл
Accessors To Date:Too ManyTo Keep Count | E. PLURIBUS UNUM MCMXCVI c.e.
===============================================================================
Pages/Links New or Updated : <http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/ipac.html>
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/wpidx.html>
<http://www.webcom.com/centrnv/shame.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Steven H. Findeiss (s...@ionet.net) wrote:
: : > >Carl Rowan column:
: : > > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its

: : > >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
: : > >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
: : > >commercials... and drive daggers into the

: : > >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
: : > >by narrow margins two years ago.

: Ronv (Khufu) replied:
: : Why is it that when [a labor union] assesses it's members it an
: : abuse of power? Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for


: : the good of the membership.

: "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined


: by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
: "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners

: "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would


: scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
: surprised by that?)

More nonsense from the right wing.

Unions elect their leaders in democratic elections. These leaders determine what
is best for the union. When employees start electing their bosses, then there can
be assessments on the rank and file.

Do you support election of bosses?

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

The Centurion (cent...@hooked.net) wrote:

: Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
: to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy

: you ARE! Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

So when do we start voting for bosses, charlie?

: btw Learn to EDIT HEADERS dumbass!

The usual deadwood charlie whine.

--
Buddy K

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:

>wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:


>>Jim Quinn who hosts "Quinn in the Morning" radio show on WRRK 97 FM

>**********************************************************

>BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS

>by Carl Rowan

(snipped for clarity)

Notice the operative statement in Carl Rowan's article:

>Gingrich is begging workers not to let Sweeney force them to

>cough up 15 cents a month for the AF(T)sic-CIO to use to


>defeat Republicans.
> Don't be surprised to see legal and other efforts to
>block the AFL-CIO political assessment.

We can only guess how Hanson reacts to this statement since
it is not his practice to react to what Liberals say, but we'll
assume he believes Rowan is accurate. Since Hanson is unlikely
to speak on this subject, I will speak for him since I know him
so well:

"I, Hanson, believe Gingrich is begging workers not to let Sweeney
force members to cough up 15 cents a month to allow the AFL-CIO
defeat Republicans. And I further believe force is appropriate
in this important endeavor."

Thank you, RH, for this important moral statement.

bwe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Help Keep America Beautiful - take a Liberal to the cleaners.


Michael Ejercito

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: More nonsense from the right wing.

:
: Unions elect their leaders in democratic elections. These leaders determine what
: is best for the union. When employees start electing their bosses, then there can
: be assessments on the rank and file.
:
: Do you support election of bosses?
Absolutely not,Henry! Labor is meant to be organized in a
heirarchical fashion. There is a chain of command that runs from the CEO
through the executives to the workers at the bottom. The day workers
elect bosses is the day soldiers elect their commanding officers.


Michael

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Steven H. Findeiss (s...@ionet.net) wrote:
>: : > >Carl Rowan column:
>: : > > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>: : > >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>: : > >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>: : > >commercials... and drive daggers into the
>: : > >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>: : > >by narrow margins two years ago.

>: Ronv (Khufu) replied:
>: : Why is it that when [a labor union] assesses it's members it an
>: : abuse of power? Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for
>: : the good of the membership.

>: "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined
>: by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
>: "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
>: "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
>: scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
>: surprised by that?)

>More nonsense from the right wing.

>Unions elect their leaders in democratic elections. These leaders

>determine whatis best for the union. When employees start electing


>their bosses, then there can be assessments on the rank and file.

>Do you support election of bosses?

>--
>Buddy K

Fuzzy logic.
Should we be surprised that you don't understand the point?

Here's the same logic:
Americans elected the Congress. They determine what is best
for the country.

Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.


HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:

: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans


: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
start electing management, then management can do some assesments.

--
Buddy K

cass

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Woody Emanuel wrote:
>
> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
>
>
> > Buddy K.
>
> Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.


Sorry, wrong... everyone working in a union represented enterprise has a
choice to belong to the union or not. We have three people in our place that
don't belong to our union, by thir own choice. They have every right the
members have under the contract, our negotiated wages, benefits and
protections. Two of the three have taken advantage of the protections on a
number of occasions and are there only because of the union, but continue to
be it's most ardent critics, go figure. Non members are paying a maintenance
fee to the union to cover their portion of the expenses in securing the
benefits they enjoy but their not forced to join.


> Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
> for what it is.

The AFL-CIO is doing what any entity thrented with extinction would do. The
republicans have gone on record as intending to enact legislation that will
destroy the unions in this country. The unions, in order to survive are
understandably attempting to replace the people dedicated to their
destruction. This seems to be a responsible service to their members. And,
non-members enjoying the benefits but reserving their suport.

>
> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But
> you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.


Come on...This government clearley believes in force, Republican and Democrat
alike, thats what this is all about. This issue isn't about fiscal
responsibility, down sizing the bureaucracy or social programs, it's about
government power being used by business' agents, now paying back thier
masters.


>
> But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea
> what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
> Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
> of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
> it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.


There's lots abhorent going on here, in the unions and government, but don't
be suprised that when you try to kill something it fights back. Even if you
don't think it has a right to live.

W. Cass

OG

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

The Centurion wrote:
> Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
> to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy
> you ARE! Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
it. Same with the union.

OG

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Steven H. Findeiss wrote:
> "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined
> by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
> "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
> "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
> scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
> surprised by that?)

You aren't suprised because you haven't thought it through. You don't
HAVE to join a union. Just like you don't HAVE to join the book of the
month club. And if the book of the month club raised your subscription
fees would you care?

OG

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Woody Emanuel wrote:
[snip]

> Here's the same logic:
> Americans elected the Congress. They determine what is best
> for the country.
> Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.

Uh, ever heard of "Right to Work" states? Most states are Right to Work
states. Now if you don't know what that means then you should read up
on the subject.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:


>Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:

>: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
>: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
>: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
>: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
>: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

>Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
>unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
>policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
>start electing management, then management can do some assesments.

> Buddy K.

Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.

Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
for what it is.

At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But


you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.

But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea

RHA

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

In article <3188dc27....@news.connectnet.com>,

And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
--
rha

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

OG, you're not thinking too much on this subject. Why do
you think there are Right to Work laws? Must be reason, eh?

Wouldn't logic tell you there must be a reason?

To help you along here, think about the reasons and get back to
me when you have the answer.


Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

cass <ca...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:

>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>
>> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
>>
>>
>> >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:
>>
>> >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
>> >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
>> >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
>> >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
>> >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.
>>
>> >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
>> >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
>> >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
>> >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.
>>
>> > Buddy K.
>>
>> Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.

>Sorry, wrong... everyone working in a union represented enterprise has a
>choice to belong to the union or not. We have three people in our place that
>don't belong to our union, by thir own choice. They have every right the
>members have under the contract, our negotiated wages, benefits and
>protections. Two of the three have taken advantage of the protections on a
>number of occasions and are there only because of the union, but continue to
>be it's most ardent critics, go figure.

>Non members are paying a maintenance
>fee to the union to cover their portion of the expenses in securing the
>benefits they enjoy but their not forced to join.

By choice? I rest my case.


>> Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
>> for what it is.

>The AFL-CIO is doing what any entity thrented with extinction would do. The

>republicans have gone on record as intending to enact legislation that will
>destroy the unions in this country. The unions, in order to survive are
>understandably attempting to replace the people dedicated to their
>destruction. This seems to be a responsible service to their members. And,
>non-members enjoying the benefits but reserving their suport.

>>

>> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But
>> you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.

>Come on...This government clearley believes in force, Republican and Democrat
>alike, thats what this is all about. This issue isn't about fiscal
>responsibility, down sizing the bureaucracy or social programs, it's about
>government power being used by business' agents, now paying back thier
>masters.


>>

>> But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea
>> what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
>> Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
>> of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
>> it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.

Gary Cruse

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to


Problem is, I would also be walking away from
my means to make a living.
Problem is, in many states, I couldn't work in
a union shop without having to pay the union.
Problem is, I wouldn't join the NRA without
agreeing with their agenda before joining.
Problem is, unions are antidemocratic, corrupt,
anachronistic, and socialist. Which is why
the left loves them so much.

Gary Cruse

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

(RHA) writes:
> And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
> CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
> those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
>--
>rha


Stop kidding yourself. Corporate money
flows into both parties. And the money
doesn't belong to the shareholders unless
the board of directors declares it so. Then
it goes to the shareholders, who, if they don't
like what is happening, can vote their shares
in the annual meetings. Stockholders are not
the weenies you portray them to be. But then,
making money by putting wealth at risk is
"dirty" to the left and capital gains taxes
can't get too high, can they?


Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
two.

Better get back to the books.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

>The Centurion wrote:
>> Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
>> to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy
>> you ARE! Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
>it. Same with the union.

And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
have consequences.

Russell Pinkham

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

>
> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>
>
> >Jim Quinn who hosts "Quinn in the Morning" radio show on WRRK 97 FM
>
> **********************************************************
>
> BIG LABOR: BACK TO THE POLITICAL WARS
>
> by Carl Rowan
>
> WASHINGTON --- The biggest political news of this
> week was not of Bob Dole's triumph over Pat Buchanan in
> California. It was of the AFL-CIO endorsing the
> re-election of President Clinton, with plans to spend $35
> million to bring that about.
> This Big Labor intervention may not restore the
> great Democratic coalition of the 1950s and 60s, but a
> labor union political onslaught could all but guarantee Mr.
> Clinton a second term, especially with polled organized
> laborers now favoring Clinton over Dole by a 3-to-1
> margin.
>
> A $35 MILLION CAMPAIGN by the 79 unions in the
> AFL-CIO could mean a quick end to Republican control
> of both the House and Senate, something that seemed less
> than a Democratic dream just a year ago. That is why
> House Speaker Newt Gingrich is crying that there oughta
> be a law against such brazen collusion between Big Labor
> and the Democratic Party.
> The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
> members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
> allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
> commercials, pay for political education and
> get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the

> political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
> by narrow margins two years ago.
> that rarely wears off. Gingrich is begging workers not to let

> Sweeney force them to cough up 15 cents a month for the
> AFT-CIO to use to defeat Republicans.

> Don't be surprised to see legal and other efforts to
> block the AFL-CIO political assessment.
> There remain fundamental disagreements between
> labor unions and the Clinton administration, particularly the
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But
> this week's AFL-CIO decision to spend $35 million to
> re-elect Clinton says that, such differences aside, the great
> mass of union people see peril in both Dole and Gingrich's
> "Contract with America."
> During the Reagan and Bush years we got a sea
> change in American politics. Laborers, ethnics, the devout
> religious, some Jews and a brigade of new-fringe blacks
> drifted right, right and far-right. Right into a dangerous
> American morass.
> Now here comes long-somnolent Big Labor, trying
> to show them the way out. The question of this week is:
> "How many Americans will now follow a labor union
> leader?"
>
> NORTH AMERICAN SYNDICATE, INC. 1996
>
> ______________________________________
>
> RH
>
>
I believe that the actual text of the message from the AFL-CIO(prsident
Sweeny)was that 35 million will be raised for political action and
for Organizing new local unions to benefit the working people of this
country.
As for the Republicans ,I believe the second part of the plan is more
terrifying than the first ie: Their big bussiness contributers can far
outshadow a mere 35 mil but more informed union people can really
upset their agenda.

Russ


HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

:
: >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:

: >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
: >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
: >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
: >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
: >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

: >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
: >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
: >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
: >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.


: Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.
: Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
: for what it is.

That's as stupid a thing as anyone will hear on this internet. Unions
control about 15% of the jobs or less. Go work for the other 85%.

You're just a crybaby.

: At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But


: you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.

Huh? Try a little reading comprehension.

: But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea


: what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
: Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
: of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
: it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.

Well, suck it up and get another job.

The unions are going to help kick GOP butts. That is the sole reason for
your crocodile tears.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:


Get a non-union job somewhere else for crying out loud. Go flip some
burgers. You GOPpers are the biggest crybabies going.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:

: Fuzzy logic.


: Should we be surprised that you don't understand the point?

Don't worry about my understanding. Instead, worry that I have you over a
barrel.


: Here's the same logic:


: Americans elected the Congress. They determine what is best
: for the country.

That's the game. Says so right in the New'nited States Constitution.

: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.

Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress. You don't like what Congress
or the unions are doing, vote or remember that Delta is ready when you
are.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: cass <ca...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:

: >Woody Emanuel wrote:
: >>
: >> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
: >>
: >>
: >> >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:
: >>
: >> >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
: >> >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
: >> >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
: >> >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
: >> >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.
: >>
: >> >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
: >> >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
: >> >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
: >> >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.
: >>

: >> > Buddy K.
: >>

: >> Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.


: >Sorry, wrong... everyone working in a union represented enterprise has a
: >choice to belong to the union or not. We have three people in our place that

: >don't belong to our union, by thir own choice. They have every right the
: >members have under the contract, our negotiated wages, benefits and
: >protections. Two of the three have taken advantage of the protections on a
: >number of occasions and are there only because of the union, but continue to
: >be it's most ardent critics, go figure.

: >Non members are paying a maintenance
: >fee to the union to cover their portion of the expenses in securing the
: >benefits they enjoy but their not forced to join.

: By choice? I rest my case.

Get a burger flipping job, for crying out loud.

We need a new newsgroup - alt.crocodile-tears for you whiners that
pretend you are concerned with that which you really are not.

--
Buddy K

user...@prairie.lakes.com

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

s...@ionet.net (Steven H. Findeiss) wrote:

>: > >Carl Rowan column:
>: > > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its


>: > >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>: > >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV

>: > >commercials... and drive daggers into the


>: > >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>: > >by narrow margins two years ago.

>Ronv (Khufu) replied:


>: Why is it that when [a labor union] assesses it's members it an
>: abuse of power? Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for
>: the good of the membership.

>"Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined


>by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
>"assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
>"assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would

wellm they do in a way already any profit used to support the
repukians is notjing more than wages stollen from the employees

user...@prairie.lakes.com

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

cent...@hooked.net (The Centurion) wrote:

>In article <31858B...@sonic.net>, Khufu <ro...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Woody Emanuel wrote:
>>>
>>> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>>
>>> >by Carl Rowan


>>>
>>> > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>>> >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>>> >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV

>>> >commercials, pay for political education and

>>> >get-out-the-vote campaigns, and drive daggers into the


>>> >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>>> >by narrow margins two years ago.
>>>
>>

>>Good for the Unions, it's about time they got back to their roots.
>>
>>
>>> Are we to take it that Hanson supports the assessment of AFL-CIO
>>> members for political purposes? Was it voluntary, Hanson? Do you
>>> care if it was voluntary or not? Should unions have such power? If so,
>>> under what rationale? May a union member object and refuse to pay to
>>> support the Democratic Party. If not, why not?
>>
>>Why is it that when the opposition assess it's members it an abuse of power.

> Who cares
>>if it was voluntary or not, it's for the good of the membership.
>>>

>>> Here we have the true test of modern Liberalism. Will Liberals be
>consistent
>>> and decry such actions or will they justify it as good, right and just?
>>> Apparently, the Democratic Party is drooling at the mouth, but can real
>>> real liberals support such action?IIf anyone can answer these questions,
>>> Hanson can.
>>
>>And it is obvious that the conservatives are running scared, just listen to
>their
>>responses.
>>>
>>> Stay tuned, folks, for Hanson's answer. But don't hold your breath. It may
>>> come under his now famous category of 'duckable.'
>>>
>>> >RH
>>
>>Yes, stay tuned the war is just beginning. The state of the Nation is at
>risk.
>>
>>Khufu


>Yeah, sure moron!! If your employer decided to deduct money from YOUR check
>to send to the Republicans you'd cry and while like the little liberal pussy

well the corp mobster does just that centy any profit they use to
support the repukian party is wages stollen from the employee

>you ARE! Typical libbie...."WE know what's BEST for you so just shut up!!"

>btw Learn to EDIT HEADERS dumbass!

>--
>AVE ATQVE VALE
>CENT...@hooked.net

Lawrence Kennon

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:

>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
>
>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.

Henry,

I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had
to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
who also came by for their weekly "contribution").

Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
the reality is.

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to


On Sun, 5 May 1996, Lawrence Kennon wrote:

> In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
> >Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> >: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
> >
> >Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.

> I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had


> to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
> sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
> were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
> his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
> who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
>
> Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
> the reality is.

There's plenty of non-union jobs out there. You could have flipped
burgers instead.

--
Buddy K

RHA

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4mfal0$5...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,

Gary Cruse <gcr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(RHA) writes:
>> And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
>> CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
>> those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
>>--
>>rha
>
>
> Stop kidding yourself. Corporate money
> flows into both parties.

Ahhh, your *real* gripe is that republicans don't
get showered with Labor money, otherwise it would
be OK with you?

> And the money
> doesn't belong to the shareholders unless
> the board of directors declares it so.

Ahhh, the stockholders aren't the owners of the business.

> Then
> it goes to the shareholders, who, if they don't
> like what is happening, can vote their shares
> in the annual meetings. Stockholders are not
> the weenies you portray them to be.

"...picture them"? In what way did I picture them?

> But then,
> making money by putting wealth at risk is
> "dirty" to the left and capital gains taxes
> can't get too high, can they?

Lemme get this straight, boards of directors *decide*
what the stockholders will or won't get...but the *Left*
is interfering with investors getting a return on their
investment? Pray never fall on your butt because you'll
receive a concussion from the impact.


--
rha

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

>You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
>to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
>to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
>which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
>a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
>two.
>
>Better get back to the books.

No one forces you to apply for a job that would require
you to join a union.


*******************************************************
*"The courage of the poet is to keep ajar the door that leads into
madness." *
* Christopher Morley
*
*
*
*******************************************************

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

>> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
>>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
>>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
>>it. Same with the union.
>
>And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
>have consequences.

Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.

Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.

Tim Watson

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

kennon...@tandem.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
>In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
>>
>>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.
>
>Henry,

>
>I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had
>to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
>sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
>were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
>his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
>who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
>
>Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
>the reality is.
>
>


Labor unions are not voluntary organizations in any state which does not
have Right to Work leglislation. In all other states - the great
majority - one may not obtain employment in a union shop unless you first
join the union. Almost every industry in non-Right to Work states are
union shops, i.e., closed shops. Thus in most states in the U.S. - and
in all the heavily inustrialized states - one may not work without union
membership. Union membership is required, and is thus not voluntary.

Tim Watson

Tim Watson

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

gcr...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Cruse ) wrote:
>(RHA) writes:
>> And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
>> CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
>> those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
>>--
>>rha
>
>
> Stop kidding yourself. Corporate money
> flows into both parties. And the money

> doesn't belong to the shareholders unless
> the board of directors declares it so. Then

> it goes to the shareholders, who, if they don't
> like what is happening, can vote their shares
> in the annual meetings. Stockholders are not
> the weenies you portray them to be. But then,

> making money by putting wealth at risk is
> "dirty" to the left and capital gains taxes
> can't get too high, can they?
>


The great majority of corporate dollars have gone to the Democratic
Party, specifically to Clinton's reelection treasury, since 1992. Big
business - Fortune 500 types - are giving to this president in
unprecedented amounts. Clinton will enjoy a large lead in donations from
big labor, big business, and big lawyer organizations. Those are the
facts.

Tim Watson

Gary Cruse

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

ri...@praline.no.NeoSoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>>
>> Stop kidding yourself. Corporate money
>> flows into both parties.

> Ahhh, your *real* gripe is that republicans don't


> get showered with Labor money, otherwise it would
> be OK with you?


I didn't mention labor money. Ben and Jerry's
is a corporation. How much money do you think
they send the RNC? I don't really care whether
corporations fund politics or not.

>> And the money
>> doesn't belong to the shareholders unless
>> the board of directors declares it so.

> Ahhh, the stockholders aren't the owners of the business.

Money stockholders receive comes from
profits in the form of dividends. A
stockholder cannot walk into "his"
company and haul out equip-
ment for his own use, no.


>> Then
>> it goes to the shareholders, who, if they don't
>> like what is happening, can vote their shares
>> in the annual meetings. Stockholders are not
>> the weenies you portray them to be.

> "...picture them"? In what way did I picture them?


>> But then,
>> making money by putting wealth at risk is
>> "dirty" to the left and capital gains taxes
>> can't get too high, can they?

> Lemme get this straight, boards of directors *decide*


> what the stockholders will or won't get...but the *Left*
> is interfering with investors getting a return on their
> investment? Pray never fall on your butt because you'll
> receive a concussion from the impact.

Are you being deliberately obtuse are you
you really this stupid? High capital gains
taxation surely saps my return on investment.
If you ever get your head out of you
dialecticalist Marxist ass, maybe you will
have a better understanding of why
communism failed. Until then, good luck.
>--
>rha

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:

Boy, Henry, look who's crying. Must have hit that raw nerve.

>: Fuzzy logic.
>: Should we be surprised that you don't understand the point?

>Don't worry about my understanding. Instead, worry that I have you over a
>barrel.

Believe what you wish, reality eventually gets you.

>: Here's the same logic:
>: Americans elected the Congress. They determine what is best
>: for the country.

>That's the game. Says so right in the New'nited States Constitution.

Really? Better read what I said a little bit more closely, as hard
as that is for you.

>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.

>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress. You don't like what Congress


>or the unions are doing, vote or remember that Delta is ready when you
>are.

As you get more lost in your reasoning, all of a sudden you're
for a Republican Congress. Congratulations.

>--
>Buddy K


Liberal myopia at work. Let me help you out a little, Buddy K.
Although logic is not a Liberal strong point, eventually
it wins out.

I would like to work for company X, but I may not do so without
either joining a union or paying the union a fee. I do not
agree with what the union does or thinks. The union does not
provide employment, company X does. I may not enter into an agreement
with the company directly. I am forced to join the union or pay them
a fee in order to hold a job with company X.

I am free to join the union or not, yes, dumbo, duh. But I can't
go to work for company X without being forced to join the union.

That should be easy enough to understand even for you, Henry, Bubba K.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:


>: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>:
>: >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:

>: >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
>: >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
>: >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
>: >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
>: >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

>: >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
>: >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
>: >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
>: >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.

>: Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.

>: Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
>: for what it is.

>That's as stupid a thing as anyone will hear on this internet. Unions
>control about 15% of the jobs or less. Go work for the other 85%.

>You're just a crybaby.

Stupid people have a habit of replying that way. Let me help you
get your foot out of your mouth.

a. You are forced to join a union of pay them a fee to hold a job
within a company in which the union controls the jobs. You may not
negotiate directly with the employer in those cases. You have
no choice to join that union or not to hold that job. Do you
think unions would exist if there were a choice to join them
or not to hold a particular job? Do you think unions "own" jobs.

b. "Unions control about 15% of the jobs or less." Let me pull
on that foot a little harder. Under what vaulted principle of
freedom of choice should unions "control" jobs? Oh, I see, they
probably shouldn't, but, hey, they ONLY control 15% anyway.

The old Liberal argument, "it may not be right, but it's not prevalent."

>: At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But
>: you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.

>Huh? Try a little reading comprehension.

Focus, Bubba K, focus. Understand what you read.

>: But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea
>: what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
>: Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
>: of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
>: it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.

>Well, suck it up and get another job.

>The unions are going to help kick GOP butts. That is the sole reason for
>your crocodile tears.

I could care less about the GOP, I only care about right and wrong.

>--
>Buddy K


Since you're having such trouble understanding all of this,
I'll be sure to reply on a level you can understand in the future,
Bubba K.


Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

>: >Steven H. Findeiss wrote:
>: >> "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined


>: >> by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
>: >> "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners

>: >> "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
>: >> scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
>: >> surprised by that?)

>: > You aren't suprised because you haven't thought it through. You don't


>: >HAVE to join a union. Just like you don't HAVE to join the book of the
>: >month club. And if the book of the month club raised your subscription
>: >fees would you care?

>: You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
>: to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have


>: to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
>: which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
>: a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
>: two.

>: Better get back to the books.

>Get a non-union job somewhere else for crying out loud. Go flip some
>burgers. You GOPpers are the biggest crybabies going.

>--
>Buddy K


I am not a GOPer and I am not crying, you are. OOPS, Bubba K.

And perhaps you would like to tell us what is wrong with
a job flipping burgers, oh wise and learned one?

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: cass <ca...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:

>: >Woody Emanuel wrote:
>: >>
>: >> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
>: >>

>: >>
>: >> >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:
>: >>
>: >> >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
>: >> >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
>: >> >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
>: >> >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
>: >> >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.
>: >>
>: >> >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
>: >> >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
>: >> >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
>: >> >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.
>: >>

>: >> > Buddy K.
>: >>

>: >> Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.

>: >Sorry, wrong... everyone working in a union represented enterprise has a
>: >choice to belong to the union or not. We have three people in our place that
>: >don't belong to our union, by thir own choice. They have every right the
>: >members have under the contract, our negotiated wages, benefits and
>: >protections. Two of the three have taken advantage of the protections on a
>: >number of occasions and are there only because of the union, but continue to
>: >be it's most ardent critics, go figure.

>: >Non members are paying a maintenance
>: >fee to the union to cover their portion of the expenses in securing the
>: >benefits they enjoy but their not forced to join.

>: By choice? I rest my case.

>Get a burger flipping job, for crying out loud.

You were going to tell us what is wrong with a job
flipping burgers, Bubba K.

>We need a new newsgroup - alt.crocodile-tears for you whiners that
>pretend you are concerned with that which you really are not.

The whiner is YOU, Bubba K. And what is it I am not concerned with?

Perhaps you should consider joing Thornsberry in
alt.ideas.trash.landfill.

>--
>Buddy K

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


>>You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
>>to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
>>to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
>>which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
>>a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
>>two.
>>
>>Better get back to the books.

>No one forces you to apply for a job that would require


>you to join a union.

Poor logic. We're taking about right vs. wrong here.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


>>> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
>>>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
>>>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
>>>it. Same with the union.
>>
>>And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
>>have consequences.

>Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
>are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
>purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.

>Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.


Who should we call for union reform?

Eleanor Rotthoff

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:

>The great majority of corporate dollars have gone to the Democratic
>Party, specifically to Clinton's reelection treasury, since 1992. Big
>business - Fortune 500 types - are giving to this president in
>unprecedented amounts. Clinton will enjoy a large lead in donations from
>big labor, big business, and big lawyer organizations. Those are the
>facts.
>
>Tim Watson

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity this was
also true in 1992. Their list of top 10 reported contributors to the
Clinton campaign:

1. Goldman Sachs, investment banking, NYC (which had huge potential
liability to its customers if Mexico had been allowed to default on
its bonds) - $107,850 - which excludes the $250,000 which former
Goldman Sachs managing partner Robert Rubin made to the New York Host
Committee to the Democratic National Convention.

2. NY State United Teachers PAC - $101,819

3. Stephens & Affiliates, holding co and oil, Little Rock - $53,600
(The Stephens-owned Worthen Bank added $24,000 more)

4. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, law firm, Washington - $50,075

5. Gallo Family, wine, Modesto, CA - $50,000

6. Sullivan & Cromwell, law firm, Washington - $37,600

7. Covington & Burling, law firm, Washington - $33,200

8. The Hernreich family, broadcasting, Ft. Smith, Ark. - $31,695

9. The Gillespie family, oil/well services, Arkansas - $28,904

10. Harvard University, employees, Cambridge, MA - $28,225


Eleanor Rotthoff
(erot...@io.com)

"Before the people can trust their government
again, the government is going to have to
trust the people again." -- The People's Budget

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

kennon...@tandem.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
>In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
>>
>>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.
>
>Henry,
>
>I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had
>to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
>sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
>were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
>his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
>who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
>
>Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
>the reality is.
>
You did not have to take the job. Union's represent only
15% of the jobs in this country. If you don't want to join
a union, apply elsewhere.

I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of
a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
protection money against illegal acts.

OG

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

> Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
> : hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:[...]

> : Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.
> : Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
> : for what it is.

Have you ever, or even known anyone that has ever been _forced_ to join
a union? Unions are only 15% of the workforce, and most states
are Right To Work states, which mean (since you obviously don't know what
it means) that you don't have to join a union even if the workplace has
been unionized.
So your argument is not only a strawman, but a figment of your
imagination.

OG

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel wrote:
[...]

> You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
> to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
> to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
> which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
> a company. Most states are Right To Work. In Right To Work states, you don't have to
join a union in order to work at _any_ job in those states. And since unions
compromise only 15% of the workforce, your argument is a strawman.


-

OG

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel wrote:
> >> Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.[OG stuff snipped]
> OG, you're not thinking too much on this subject. Why do
> you think there are Right to Work laws? Must be reason, eh?

By making Right To Work laws, you _are_ making unions voluntary organizations.
Haven't YOU thought it out that far?

-
-
-

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

>-
>-
>-
The old cart before the horse argument.

OG, you are not following this very well. Anyone is free
to join a union or not as they so wish. You are not free
to contract with an employer as an individual where a union
"controls" access to jobs. It is compulsory in order to
gain that job.

You all bitch about that unions "control" only 15%
of jobs, as if that is supposed to make it right.

Your stupidity is that you don't recognize that it should
never been necessary to institute right to work laws to begin
with.

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:

: >> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.


: >>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
: >>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
: >>it. Same with the union.
: >
: >And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
: >have consequences.

: Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
: are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
: purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.

I'm still waiting for Smithfood to send me my portion of the $125,000 they
gave to VA GOP politicians last year. I have fewer voting rights than a
rank-and-file union worker. But none of the "crocodile tears gang" worry
about that. Sell my stock they say. Hell, a union worker can find
another job.

: Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.

Not only do both Parties do it, but both send their lawyers down to the
courthouse to ask for more. I don't doubt that they exchange briefs
before they file them to make sure all the arguments are covered.

--
Buddy K

--
ÿWPC·

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:

>kennon...@tandem.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
>>In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,

>> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:


>>>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>>
>>>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
>>>

>>>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.
>>
>>Henry,
>>
>>I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had
>>to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
>>sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
>>were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
>>his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
>>who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
>>
>>Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
>>the reality is.
>>
>You did not have to take the job. Union's represent only
>15% of the jobs in this country. If you don't want to join
>a union, apply elsewhere.

>I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of
>a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
>protection money against illegal acts.

Who said they wanted benefits without membership? What is
being discussed is no membership and no benefits.

You miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with benefits,
and there are no such things as "union" jobs. It has to with
the right for an individual to contract on his or her own with
an employer without interference or restriction.

Where unions control access to jobs, you have no right
to contract with that employer on your own. It may be
legal, but is it right?

Why do you think there are "right to work" laws?

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

ga$8...@ren.cei.net>
: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:

Tim Watson (tim...@cei.net) wrote:


: kennon...@tandem.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
: >In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
: > hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
: >>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: >
: >>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
: >>
: >>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.

: >I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had


: >to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
: >sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
: >were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
: >his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
: >who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
: >
: >Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
: >the reality is.

: Labor unions are not voluntary organizations in any state which does not

: have Right to Work leglislation. In all other states - the great
: majority - one may not obtain employment in a union shop unless you first
: join the union. Almost every industry in non-Right to Work states are
: union shops, i.e., closed shops. Thus in most states in the U.S. - and
: in all the heavily inustrialized states - one may not work without union
: membership. Union membership is required, and is thus not voluntary.

No. You are intentionally misleading people or leaving out a very
pertinent fact.

There are lots of non-union jobs around even in a non-Right-to-Work state.
Burger flippers aren't usually organized. There are lots of small shop
non-union jobs. The only "professional" workers who are heavily organized
are in government in one form or another.

Nobody has to work in an industry where there is a union.

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:

: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

: >Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:

: Boy, Henry, look who's crying. Must have hit that raw nerve.

: >: Fuzzy logic.
: >: Should we be surprised that you don't understand the point?

: >Don't worry about my understanding. Instead, worry that I have you over a
: >barrel.

: Believe what you wish, reality eventually gets you.

: >: Here's the same logic:
: >: Americans elected the Congress. They determine what is best
: >: for the country.

: >That's the game. Says so right in the New'nited States Constitution.

: Really? Better read what I said a little bit more closely, as hard
: as that is for you.

: >: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.

: >Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress. You don't like what Congress


: >or the unions are doing, vote or remember that Delta is ready when you
: >are.

: As you get more lost in your reasoning, all of a sudden you're
: for a Republican Congress. Congratulations.

Well, Stump, nothing you said in the above is worthy of a response other
than to point out how immaturely goofy you can be.

: Liberal myopia at work. Let me help you out a little, Buddy K.


: Although logic is not a Liberal strong point, eventually
: it wins out.

: I would like to work for company X, but I may not do so without
: either joining a union or paying the union a fee. I do not
: agree with what the union does or thinks. The union does not
: provide employment, company X does. I may not enter into an agreement
: with the company directly. I am forced to join the union or pay them

: a fee in order to hold a job with company X.

So go get another job. The company and the union signed a CONTRACT that
says it will be that way. Don't you believe in contract law and the
sancity of contracts?

: I am free to join the union or not, yes, dumbo, duh. But I can't


: go to work for company X without being forced to join the union.

: That should be easy enough to understand even for you, Henry, Bubba K.

Stump, you certainly do allow everything to fly over your head, don't you?

The solution is simple - don't go to work for Company X. Get another job.

Now, even you should be able to understand that one.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

std.com>

: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:


: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

: >Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: >: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

: >:
: >: >Michael Williams (will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu) wrote:

: >: >: I'm not sure if you really mean this. Personally, I've found Americans
: >: >: to take great pride in their free expression of political thought. I
: >: >: find the idea that an organization has decided to spend more than $35
: >: >: million of compulsory member dues--many paid by workers as a prerequisite
: >: >: to even attempt to earn a livlihood at a union job--to be pretty disturbing.

: >: >Especially since you're a Republican. But you have to remember that
: >: >unions elect their leaders & it's elected leaders who determine union
: >: >policy, just as elected politicians determine tax policy. When employees
: >: >start electing management, then management can do some assesments.


: >: Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.


: >: Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
: >: for what it is.

: >That's as stupid a thing as anyone will hear on this internet. Unions

: >control about 15% of the jobs or less. Go work for the other 85%.

: >You're just a crybaby.

: Stupid people have a habit of replying that way. Let me help you
: get your foot out of your mouth.

: a. You are forced to join a union of pay them a fee to hold a job
: within a company in which the union controls the jobs. You may not
: negotiate directly with the employer in those cases. You have
: no choice to join that union or not to hold that job. Do you
: think unions would exist if there were a choice to join them
: or not to hold a particular job? Do you think unions "own" jobs.

Yes, Stump, unions "own" jobs. They negotiate with employers. There is
a CONTRACT. Have you ever heard of a CONTRACT, Stump?

When you get to be old enough to buy cars, houses, etc., perhaps you will
get to see what a contract looks like. Until then, just take my word for
it.

: b. "Unions control about 15% of the jobs or less." Let me pull


: on that foot a little harder. Under what vaulted principle of
: freedom of choice should unions "control" jobs? Oh, I see, they
: probably shouldn't, but, hey, they ONLY control 15% anyway.

CONTRACT LAW, Stump. Is that simple enough for you?

: The old Liberal argument, "it may not be right, but it's not prevalent."

The old Stump crocodile tears ploy.


: >: At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But


: >: you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.

: >Huh? Try a little reading comprehension.
: Focus, Bubba K, focus. Understand what you read.

: >: But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea
: >: what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
: >: Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
: >: of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
: >: it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.

: >Well, suck it up and get another job.

: >The unions are going to help kick GOP butts. That is the sole reason for
: >your crocodile tears.

: I could care less about the GOP, I only care about right and wrong.

Right. Sure. Let me send you a hankie so you can dry those crocodile tears.


: Since you're having such trouble understanding all of this,


: I'll be sure to reply on a level you can understand in the future,

Stump, nobody can get low enough for you to understand despite our efforts.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

: >Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: >: OG <swil...@dbc.com> writes:

: >: >Steven H. Findeiss wrote:
: >: >> "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined
: >: >> by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
: >: >> "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
: >: >> "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
: >: >> scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
: >: >> surprised by that?)

: >: > You aren't suprised because you haven't thought it through. You don't
: >: >HAVE to join a union. Just like you don't HAVE to join the book of the
: >: >month club. And if the book of the month club raised your subscription
: >: >fees would you care?

: >: You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
: >: to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have


: >: to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
: >: which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within

: >: a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
: >: two.

: >: Better get back to the books.


: >Get a non-union job somewhere else for crying out loud. Go flip some

: >burgers. You GOPpers are the biggest crybabies going.

: I am not a GOPer and I am not crying, you are. OOPS, Bubba K.

: And perhaps you would like to tell us what is wrong with
: a job flipping burgers, oh wise and learned one?

Nothing, Stump, nothing at all. No unions and a chance to earn a nickle
over minimum wage. Go for it. And stop crying.


--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


: >>You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
: >>to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
: >>to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
: >>which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
: >>a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
: >>two.
: >>
: >>Better get back to the books.

: >No one forces you to apply for a job that would require


: >you to join a union.

: Poor logic. We're taking about right vs. wrong here.

Are you trying to argue that CONTRACTS aren't right, Stump?
You must be a Montana Freeman.

Why don't you try to convince my mortgage company that it's not right for
them to expect money every month in exchange for a loan on a house?

--
Buddy K

OG

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel wrote:
> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force.

Except when it comes to abortion, or flag burning, or a third-world country
that doesn't want to toe the American line.
-
-

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


: >>> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
: >>>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
: >>>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
: >>>it. Same with the union.
: >>
: >>And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
: >>have consequences.

: >Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
: >are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
: >purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.

: >Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.

: Who should we call for union reform?

That's easy, Stump. You join the union and then you vote. Same as the
other union members.

--
Buddy K

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

uu$g...@alterdial.UU.NET>

: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:

Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: kennon...@tandem.com (Lawrence Kennon) wrote:
: >In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,
: > hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
: >>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: >

: >>: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a point.
: >>
: >>Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.

: >
: >Henry,
: >


: >I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I had
: >to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made real
: >sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
: >were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
: >his business in Chicago for a "contribution", (or the Chicago police
: >who also came by for their weekly "contribution").
: >
: >Like I said, I don't know exactly what the law says, but I do know what
: >the reality is.
: >

: You did not have to take the job. Union's represent only


: 15% of the jobs in this country. If you don't want to join
: a union, apply elsewhere.

: I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of
: a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
: protection money against illegal acts.

Well, Gail, you know how these right wingers are. Always want something
for nothing.

--
Buddy K

William R. Discipio Jr

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: uu$g...@alterdial.UU.NET>

: : Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
: Distribution:

: Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:

: : You did not have to take the job. Union's represent only
: : 15% of the jobs in this country. If you don't want to join
: : a union, apply elsewhere.

Yes, and I'm sure you say the same thing when an organized crime ring
tries to extort 'protection' money. "Nobody is telling you you have to
live here. Go live some place else where we don't offer you 'protection.'

: : I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of


: : a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
: : protection money against illegal acts.

I find it strange that you demand that people who are willing to
negotiate their own contracts should be forced to pay tribute to a union.

: Well, Gail, you know how these right wingers are. Always want something
: for nothing.

That's just like Buddy KKK to want to force everybody to support his
ideology and rifle through their pockets to provide the necessary funding.

: --
: Buddy K
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Plus Jim [Kennemur] does not call all blacks he disagrees with house
niggers Jim [Kennemur] calls house niggers that he disagrees with house
niggers. Big difference Dippy." -- Shawn Smith <ssh...@ccsi.com>

Tim Watson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>Steven H. Findeiss (s...@ionet.net) wrote:
>: : > >Carl Rowan column:
>: : > > The AFL-CIO is going to assess each of its
>: : > >members 15 cents a month to build a war chest that will
>: : > >allow it to pay $20 million for pro-Clinton radio and TV
>: : > >commercials... and drive daggers into the
>: : > >political hearts of some 75 Republican freshmen who won
>: : > >by narrow margins two years ago.
>
>: Ronv (Khufu) replied:
>: : Why is it that when [a labor union] assesses it's members it an
>: : abuse of power? Who cares if it was voluntary or not, it's for
>: : the good of the membership.

>
>: "Who cares...?!" If it's a good liberal cause ("good" being defined
>: by the Union leaders and their Democrat allies), it's OK to force
>: "assessments" on the rank and file, right? Man, if business owners
>: "assessed" their employees to support GOP agendas, you guys would
>: scream bloody murder! What utter hypocrisy. (And why am I not
>: surprised by that?)
>
>More nonsense from the right wing.
>
>Unions elect their leaders in democratic elections. These leaders determine what
>is best for the union. When employees start electing their bosses, then there can
>be assessments on the rank and file.
>
>Do you support election of bosses?
>
>--
>Buddy K
The U.S. Supreme ruled several years ago that labor unions may not use
compulsory collections from members and other compelled to pay dues for
and purpose unrelated to collective bargaining (Beck v. CWA), and that if
a union does so, it must account for and refund all illicit collections.
The problem with this ruling has been its implementation. The U.S. Labor
Department, under Reagan and Bush, promulgated regulations requiring
labor unions to inform their members, in writing, of the payors' rights
under Beck, and to establish a procedure by which an aggrieved worker
could recover the wrongly collected funds. In one case in with the court
ordered an accounting, the labor union in question was found to have
utilized less than 15% of the total dues in had collected for collective
bargaining and related matters.

One of the first actions taken by Clinton when he took office was to
revoke this directive. Now no labor union is required to inform its
members of their Beck rights, and none do. If the accounting by the
Court in the CWA case is any guide, labor unions in the United States
today are forceably collecting millions from their members for propaganda
purposes.

The argument that union bosses are, in effect, benevalent dictators,
merely doing what is in the best interests of their rank and file, is
curious in a democracy, and comparisons with Congress are a little
ahistorical, to say the least. Worst of all, it seems to me, is the
argument that what labor unions are doing is all right, depending on
one's politics. The law prohibits collections for anything other than
the costs of collective bargaining - labor unions under Clinton are
freely violating this law, and with the encouragement of the
administration. A new legal challenge will be mounted, but nothing will
happen until well after the next election, and Clinton knows this. He
will accept this illegal and unfair advantage, 'cause that's the kind of
guy he is.

Tim Watson


Tim Watson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Buddy K says (some snipped)


>I'm still waiting for Smithfood to send me my portion of the $125,000 they
>gave to VA GOP politicians last year. I have fewer voting rights than a
>rank-and-file union worker. But none of the "crocodile tears gang" worry
>about that. Sell my stock they say. Hell, a union worker can find
>another job.


Out of curiousity - will you receive a refund from Smithfood? What is
that company? Are you a shareholder? What is the basis for your claim of
a refund?

Are you a member of a labor union? If so, do they inform you that you
have a right to a refund of any portion of dues collected from you that
are not used for collective bargaining?

If you live in a closed shop state and have a good union job, and you
disagree with your leaderships' decision to donate your union's share of
the $35 million your leadership has said it will spend to elect
Democrats, is it that easy for you simply to quit and find another
comparable job? Or will such an act require you to suffer substantial
economic sacrifice for exercising your right not to be compelled to
donate your money to a political cause with which you disagree?

>
>: Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.
>

>Not only do both Parties do it, but both send their lawyers down to the
>courthouse to ask for more. I don't doubt that they exchange briefs
>before they file them to make sure all the arguments are covered.


I missed the point of that. What are you talking about? And why not ask
Clinton to propose campaign reform? He's the president, and he's the one
who instructed his Labor and Justice Departments to disregard the Beck
decision, which held that labor unions may not forcibly collect funds
from members or others required to pay dues for any reason other than
collective bargaining expenses.

>--
>Buddy K
>
>


Tim Watson


Spinoleo

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody Emanuel writes...

> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force.
Bullshit! Republicans wrote the book on force, from gunning down abortion
doctors to threatening federal employees. This is the reason Republicans
are so paranoid about their guns being taken away; with the majority of
American voters disgusted with their party, weapons might be the only way
Republicans can maintain any kind of control.

Here's hoping "Big Labor" KICKS YOUR ASS!

MidTownGar

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

>Under what vaulted principle should unions "control" jobs?

Under what vaulted principle should people be unable to join a union?
You already don't have to join a union to get a job (aka Right To Work),
so you must be one of those Everyone Work under Contract people.
"Where you stand on an issue depends of where you sit."
-One of Murphy's laws

MidTownGar

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Woody displays reading comprehension problems with:

>OG, you are not following this very well.

No, I think OG has the main gist pretty well handled. You on the other
hand...

>You are not free to contract with an employer as an individual
>where a union "controls" access to jobs. It is compulsory in order to
>gain that job.

That is right. But that is also not the case.

Now read that part over again before you answer this time. Right To Work
laws make it illegal to force employees to join a union in order to work
for that employer. Do you get it now? Because if you can't comprehend
that, then your reading skills are sorely lacking.
I worked for Pacific Bell in California at one time. I worked with both
union and non-union people, side-by-side. California is a Right To Work
state. Most people were smart enough to join the union when they had the
chance.

>Your stupidity is that you don't recognize that it should never be

>necessary to institute Right to Work laws to begin with.

And it should never have been necessary to make laws to make it legal to
strike. But it took decades of strikers getting shot down by police and
Pinkerton thugs before that happened. Now you are bitching because of a
law that makes it the way you want it to be. Let me shed a tear from my
one good eye for you.

-GJ

Russell Pinkham

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>
> In article <3188dc27....@news.connectnet.com>,
> Tim Waldowski *or* Barbara Blackwell <ti...@computrade.com> wrote:
> >ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> >
> >In a recent poll of AFLCIO members:
> > 85% did not know that they could request the refund
> > 77% supported the Contract With America
> >
> >60% of those union members voted Republican in 1994.

I would just like to know where he got his figures from??
you missed this question Hanson!

>
> And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
> CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
> those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
> --
> rha

Russell Pinkham

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>
> In article <4mhcl9$6...@portal.gmu.edu>,

> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
> >Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> >: Unless unions become voluntary organizations, you don't have a
point.
> >
> >Stupid, they are as voluntary as Congress.
>
> Henry,
>
> I have been a member of a labor union. Don't know for a fact that I
had
> to join under the law, but I _had_ to join and union members made
real
I take it you didn't get union wages job security ect.
are you one of those ingreats who beleives they shouldn't have to pay
the cost of doing business.

> sure that I understood that. As far as I could tell the union bosses
> were no different than the Mafia guys that shook down my uncle in
> his business in Chicago for a "contribution"
,

You obviously did not attend meetings or take the time to find out what
was going on!!!

(or the Chicago police
> who also came by for their weekly "contribution").

Now this is a political comparison cops or mafia both after my money..

Steve Casburn

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

[Newsgroups trimmed; I'm posting from a.f.d-q]


In article <4mm6n0$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Spinoleo <spin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Woody Emanuel:


>
>> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force.
>
>Bullshit! Republicans wrote the book on force, from gunning down abortion
>doctors to threatening federal employees.

I wasn't aware that the GOP is now advocating that its members
commit either one of those senseless atrocities. The only federal
employees that the GOP is currently threatening are Bill Clinton and
Al Gore, and even then it's only their jobs...


>This is the reason Republicans
>are so paranoid about their guns being taken away; with the majority of
>American voters disgusted with their party, weapons might be the only way
>Republicans can maintain any kind of control.

Slander. The GOP has lost the White House and both houses of
Congress four times since 1960, and there has never been any attempt
of any sort to keep control unlawfully.
In the wise words of Def Leppard, "Paranoia will destroy ya..."


>Here's hoping "Big Labor" KICKS YOUR ASS!

Well, Big Labor has been *picking* its ass since the '84
election; I think they're a little out of practice with the other
thing...

Steve

(AOL gives out accounts to pretty much everyone, don't they?)

--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"[T]wo hundred years from now the historians will write about our solemn
rituals of getting and spending as if we were children worshipping
stones." -- Lewis Lapham

Russell Pinkham

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>
> gcr...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Cruse ) wrote:

> >(RHA) writes:
> >> And what percent of stockholders will vote Democratic when
> >> CEOs give stockholder monies to the republicans? Can
> >> those stockholders ask for their money back? Thought not.
> >>--
> >>rha
> >
> >
> > Stop kidding yourself. Corporate money
> > flows into both parties. And the money
> > doesn't belong to the shareholders unless
> > the board of directors declares it so. Then
> > it goes to the shareholders, who, if they don't
> > like what is happening, can vote their shares
> > in the annual meetings. Stockholders are not
> > the weenies you portray them to be. But then,
> > making money by putting wealth at risk is
> > "dirty" to the left and capital gains taxes
> > can't get too high, can they?

> >
>
>
> The great majority of corporate dollars have gone to the Democratic
> Party, specifically to Clinton's reelection treasury, since 1992. Big
> business - Fortune 500 types - are giving to this president in
> unprecedented amounts. Clinton will enjoy a large lead in donations
from
> big labor, big business, and big lawyer organizations. Those are the
> facts.
>
>
>
> Tim Watson
>
>
> The Federal Election Commission reported organized labor's 164
campaign finance committees gave $11.2 million to congessional &
presidential canidates in 1995. The 1856 corporate PAC's without stock
gave 48.8 million to canidates. Of labor money $9.3 million went to
democrats and $1.9 million to republicans, of corporate money $44.8
million went to republicans & $4 million to democrats

In 1993 55% of corporate money went to republicans (approx $22 million)

In 1994 after a republican sweep of congress these same corporate PAC's
gave $44.8 million to republicans & $8.3 million to democrats

so where is the majority going moreover who is really getting the
most??
Democrat Republican
1993- $21 mil vs $22 mil
1994- $16.2 mil vs $45.9 mil
1995- $13.3 mil vs $46.7 mil
>
so what were you saying since 1992???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dan Thornsberry

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <VA.0000003c.004ec8da@rpinkham>, rpin...@pop.directnet.net says...

Gosh Russell, I hope you were kind enough to send Tim
som KY Jelly before you presented him with these facts,
for you certainly stuck them up his butt!!!

Way to go! Boot Noot in '96.

Stop the government subsidy for the production
of brown shirts!

--
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanted - Any person willing to lie to a jury. No
experience necessary. It would be beneficial if the
applicant had an intense hatred of the Clintons. All
interested parties should contact Mr. Kenneth Starr
through the Dole campaign office. If Mr. Starr is
unavailable, you can contact any New Jersey numbers
runner and the message will be passed on to Senator
D'Amato.
-------------------------------------------------------
Star witness - A person who will enhance your position
when they testify.
Starr witness - A person you hire to perjure themselves.
Libruul - A person smarter than yourself.
Commie - A libruul who has traveled outside of Georgia.
NRA life member - A person whose father is also their
grandfather.
Dittohead - A person who decides thinking is just too
strenuous.
Libertarian - Member of an elite group of 14,000. Would
be much higher if ex-cons could vote.
John Birchers - Would be Libertarians if they could vote.
--------------------------------------------------------
# 1 militiaman problem:
Government intrusion into their lives.
# 2 militiaman problem:
Cockroach infestation of their homes.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Joke of the week:
-
Q. Why are there no altar girls?
A. Because 9 out of 10 priests prefer little boys.
------------------------------------------------------------
"America, love it or leave it" - The Old Right
"America, blow it up" - The Newt Reich
"I am the GOP" - Timothy McVeigh
"Send us your insane, your violent, your racist" - Statue of Montana
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas


Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

midto...@aol.com (MidTownGar) writes:

>>Under what vaulted principle should unions "control" jobs?

> Under what vaulted principle should people be unable to join a union?
>You already don't have to join a union to get a job (aka Right To Work),
>so you must be one of those Everyone Work under Contract people.

>"Where you stand on an issue depends of where you sit."
> -One of Murphy's laws


You'd better read a little more carefully. Who said people should
not be able to join a union?

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:

>--
>Buddy K

You've really got yourself lost, Bubba K. Do you understand
that contracts are voluntary? Do you understand what happens
when GM's contract with the UAW is up?

Let's say GM decides it no longer wishes to deal with the UAW
after a contract expires. Ok or not?

Now when you've begun to figure out what we're talking
about here, get back to me.

P.S. You might consider seeing an eye doctor first.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


>: >>> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
>: >>>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
>: >>>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
>: >>>it. Same with the union.
>: >>
>: >>And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
>: >>have consequences.

>: >Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
>: >are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
>: >purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.

>: >Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.

>: Who should we call for union reform?

>That's easy, Stump. You join the union and then you vote. Same as the
>other union members.

>--
>Buddy K

Focus, Bubba K, focus. I know you having trouble, but give it
a try.

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

uu$g...@alterdial.UU.NET> <Dr028...@world.std.com>

: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:

Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


: >I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of
: >a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
: >protection money against illegal acts.

: Who said they wanted benefits without membership? What is


: being discussed is no membership and no benefits.

: You miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with benefits,
: and there are no such things as "union" jobs. It has to with
: the right for an individual to contract on his or her own with
: an employer without interference or restriction.

: Where unions control access to jobs, you have no right
: to contract with that employer on your own. It may be
: legal, but is it right?

: Why do you think there are "right to work" laws?

OK, Stump. So if I put a contract on a house, nobody else has the right
to contract on his or her own for that particular house. I guess that's
just not right, is it?

--
Buddy K

willie_b

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

"It's uncanny how something with my name on it dissapears without explanation."
(willie_b not Hillary but I'm sure Hillary has the same quote somewhere)
"This "Post" will self-destruct in the 10 seconds following it's insertion."
(probably something else "similar" to what Hillary has said before)

Well everything that I say has intellect attached to it and is deleted from this "group"
as soon as it's posted, soooooo take this!:

"Signs Bill Clinton is Eating Too Much Rice-A-Roni"

(embellished version of what was) presented on the 05/06/96 broadcast of LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN

10. Bill can't cross the Golden Gate Bridge without consulting a team of architects
9. Bill drinks a cup of boiling water and expands to three times his normal size
8. Bill showed up for work naked except for a strategically-placed seasoning pouch
7. Bill got a little visit from a couple of Uncle Ben's goons
6. Bill just spent $1.7 million for a box of Rice-A-Roni that belonged to Jackie Onassis
5. Every Wednesday night he has a small group meeting that begins with someone saying
"My name is Bill and I eat too much Rice-A-Roni"
4. When he goes swimming in the SF bay, tourists mistake him for Alcatraz
3. Bill actually passed up a delicious head of lettuce
2. When Bill asks hookers for a "San Francisco treat," he really does mean dinner
1. Two words: Giant Ass-A-Roni


yup, 10 seconds!


willie_b


"For we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead,
nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Most profound statement, taking a painfully long time to incorporate, made by
the leader of one of the worlds most well known businesses-
"We should never tolerate meaningless tasks, or taboos, or an inefficient method
simply because it was done that way. The IBM way, as far as I'm concerned, is
whatever way is most effecient, no matter how it was done in the past"
-Tom Watson Jr., 1961, (1914-1993)

"POINT MAN", WALKING DOWN THE HO CHI MINH INFORMATION HIGHWAY


cass

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

> >>
> >> Except that you have no choice whether to belong to the union or not.
>
> >Sorry, wrong... everyone working in a union represented enterprise has a
> >choice to belong to the union or not. We have three people in our place that
> >don't belong to our union, by thir own choice. They have every right the
> >members have under the contract, our negotiated wages, benefits and
> >protections. Two of the three have taken advantage of the protections on a
> >number of occasions and are there only because of the union, but continue to
> >be it's most ardent critics, go figure.
>
> >Non members are paying a maintenance
> >fee to the union to cover their portion of the expenses in securing the
> >benefits they enjoy but their not forced to join.
>
> By choice? I rest my case.


Choice?... Members have no choice about spending their money on non-members
interests. They are compelled by law to spend whatever may be necessary to
represent member and non-member alike. They are required by law to grant
access to their group benefit programs to member and non-member. It is
against the law to exclude non-members from contract benefits that sometimes
have been very costly in securing. There have been a number of court cases
brought against the unions by non-members for failing to meet their "duity of
fair representation" resulting in some large awards. This has happened even
in "right to work" states, which by the way hold the members to the same
requirements but release the non-member from any obligation to pay for the
services and benefits they enjoy. /WC


>
> >> Deny reality if you want, the rest of us, including Liberals, see it
> >> for what it is.
>

> >The AFL-CIO is doing what any entity thrented with extinction would do. The
> >republicans have gone on record as intending to enact legislation that will
> >destroy the unions in this country. The unions, in order to survive are
> >understandably attempting to replace the people dedicated to their
> >destruction. This seems to be a responsible service to their members. And,
> >non-members enjoying the benefits but reserving their suport.


>
> >>
> >> At least you acknowledge that Republicans do not believe in force. But
> >> you forgot the majority of Americans who do not believe in it either.
>

> >Come on...This government clearley believes in force, Republican and Democrat
> >alike, thats what this is all about. This issue isn't about fiscal
> >responsibility, down sizing the bureaucracy or social programs, it's about
> >government power being used by business' agents, now paying back thier
> >masters.


>
> >>
> >> But like others suffering form liberal myopia here, you have no idea
> >> what you really are saying. The majority of Americans, particulary
> >> Liberals, find the idea of compulsory unionism, much less the use
> >> of compulsory dues for political purposes, abhorent. Rationalize
> >> it any way you want Buddy K, it is still abhorent.
>

> >There's lots abhorent going on here, in the unions and government, but don't
> >be suprised that when you try to kill something it fights back. Even if you
> >don't think it has a right to live.
>
> >W. Cass

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>Labor unions are not voluntary organizations in any state which does not
>have Right to Work leglislation. In all other states - the great
>majority - one may not obtain employment in a union shop unless you first
>join the union. Almost every industry in non-Right to Work states are
>union shops, i.e., closed shops. Thus in most states in the U.S. - and
>in all the heavily inustrialized states - one may not work without union
>membership. Union membership is required, and is thus not voluntary.
>

Union membership is required IF you want to have a union
job. You don't have to work there. As a matter of fact,
you have more choices elsewhere. Only 15% of the workers
are represented by unions.

You could always work and MacDonalds if you don't want
to join a union. If you want the job protections that
a union provides, you should pay your dues.

*******************************************************
*"The courage of the poet is to keep ajar the door that leads into madness." *
* Christopher Morley *
* *
*******************************************************

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>I would like to work for company X, but I may not do so without
>either joining a union or paying the union a fee. I do not
>agree with what the union does or thinks. The union does not
>provide employment, company X does. I may not enter into an agreement
>with the company directly. I am forced to join the union or pay them

>a fee in order to hold a job with company X.


>
>I am free to join the union or not, yes, dumbo, duh. But I can't
>go to work for company X without being forced to join the union.
>

This is called a conundrum? If you are free to join or not,
you can't be forced.

>That should be easy enough to understand even for you, Henry, Bubba K.
>

Don't go to work for Company X if it has a union. Try
Company A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M. Unions, in fact, only
represent 15% of the workers. You have more choice elsewhere.

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:
>
>
>>>You have some catching up to do. There are unions which you have
>>>to join in order to hold a job. There are unions that you do not have
>>>to join but which you have to pay a "fee" anyway. There are unions
>>>which you do not have join nor pay a fee to hold certain jobs within
>>>a company. The latter does not cancel out the existence of the former
>>>two.
>>>
>>>Better get back to the books.
>
>>No one forces you to apply for a job that would require
>>you to join a union.
>
>Poor logic. We're taking about right vs. wrong here.
>
We are debating morality. We are debating your assertion
that you can be forced to join a union.

You seem not to want to address the issue that you
do not have to take a union job. Instead you seem to
want to change the subject.

Okay, I think it would be WRONG if you got the benefits
of being in a union but did not pay the dues.

Gail Thaler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

>>>> And if they deducted it for the Democratic party I would scream too.
>>>>But I belonged to a group, say like the NRA, and they raised my
>>>>membership fees, I would either no longer be a member, or I would pay
>>>>it. Same with the union.
>>>
>>>And if you don't pay your dues, what happens, OG? Actions
>>>have consequences.
>
>>Money for political PACS is strictly voluntary. The dues
>>are not going to Democrats per se, but are used for "education
>>purposes" to remind voters of the contract on American.
>
>>Both parties do it. If you want campaign reform, call Newt.
>
>
>Who should we call for union reform?
>

Try joining a union and reforming it from within.

Woody Emanuel

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) writes:

>uu$g...@alterdial.UU.NET> <Dr028...@world.std.com>
>: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
>Distribution:

>Woody Emanuel (b...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> writes:


>: >I find it strange that you would like to have the benefits of
>: >a union job without having to pay for membership. It is not
>: >protection money against illegal acts.

>: Who said they wanted benefits without membership? What is
>: being discussed is no membership and no benefits.

>: You miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with benefits,
>: and there are no such things as "union" jobs. It has to with
>: the right for an individual to contract on his or her own with
>: an employer without interference or restriction.

>: Where unions control access to jobs, you have no right
>: to contract with that employer on your own. It may be
>: legal, but is it right?

>: Why do you think there are "right to work" laws?

>OK, Stump. So if I put a contract on a house, nobody else has the right
>to contract on his or her own for that particular house. I guess that's
>just not right, is it?

>--
>Buddy K

Focus, Bubba K, focus. You're losing it.

HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Michael Ejercito (mich...@csulb.edu) wrote:
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. (hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: : More nonsense from the right wing.

: :
: : Unions elect their leaders in democratic elections. These leaders determine what
: : is best for the union. When employees start electing their bosses, then there can
: : be assessments on the rank and file.
: :
: : Do you support election of bosses?

: Absolutely not,Henry! Labor is meant to be organized in a
: heirarchical fashion.

Michael, Michael, Michael. Perhaps you should read up on network organizations
and the Japanese keiretsu.

: There is a chain of command that runs from the CEO
: through the executives to the workers at the bottom. The day workers
: elect bosses is the day soldiers elect their commanding officers.

At least up to and including the Civil War, soldiers elected their officers as
far as the rank of Captain.

But my point is that unions have elected bosses and thus the right to assess
members. Corporate bosses don't have that right.

--
Buddy K

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages