Wage Theft - the crime wave no one talks about
Immortalist
billions of dollars worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers
in the United States every year. The scope of these abuses is as
staggering as it is wrong and only now are people beginning to take
notice.
-paying employees far less
than the legal minimum wage,
-purposefully misclassifying
employees as independent contractors,
-illegally denying workers
overtime pay
-cheating on hours
-failing to contribute payroll taxes
-skipping the last paycheck
-appropriating tips
How do we prevent the flagrant exploitation of America’s working
people?
Ask your friends and family if they have been ripped off by an
employer, or classified as an "independent contractor," or been paid
straight time for overtime. It's hard to find someone who has not been
cheated at work.
These are the kinds of crime that doesn't make the evening news leads,
but affects millions. Wage theft is a practice the government barely
bothers to police.
http://www.amazon.com/Wage-Theft-America-Millions-Americans/dp/1595584455/
Nickname unavailable
its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
demand. it will do the exact opposite.
Michael Gordge
> In what has been described as “the crime wave no one talks about,”
Yeah no doubt about tax is a fucking scam alright.
MG
AZDuffman
> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just making
people independent contractors because the Obama Administration wants
to make it too easy for unions to be formed amongst other "fariness"
regulations that destroy competitiveness.
Things that will destroy good company's like Toyota who have seen fit
to open plants in the USA and make them adopt the tactics of GM and
move them overseas.
*Anarcissie*
> On Feb 7, 9:45 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> > excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> > demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just making
> people independent contractors because the Obama Administration wants
> to make it too easy for unions to be formed amongst other "fariness"
> regulations that destroy competitiveness.
It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
exercising the rights of association, expression and
contract to further their economic interests. I don't get
the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's
natural rights? The Supreme Court has decided that
corporations have rights -- now you want us to decide that
human beings don't?
AZDuffman
> On Feb 8, 12:51 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 9:45 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> > > excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> > > demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just making
> > people independent contractors because the Obama Administration wants
> > to make it too easy for unions to be formed amongst other "fariness"
> > regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>
> It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> exercising the rights of association, expression and
> contract to further their economic interests. I don't get
> the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's
> natural rights? The Supreme Court has decided that
> corporations have rights -- now you want us to decide that
> human beings don't?
You need to educate yourself--Obama has stated he wants to take away
your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
not. That is the "too easy" part. He thinks unions should be able to
send out thugs who say, "You want to sign up for the union, right?
Hey, nice car..be a shame if something happened to it in the lot while
you were at work. You do want to sign this card, right?"
What I don't get is where you draw a conclusion that I think human
beings don't have rights?
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
>>> excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
>>> demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
>> making people independent contractors because the Obama
>> Administration wants to make it too easy for unions to be formed
>> amongst other "fariness" regulations that destroy competitiveness.
> It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> exercising the rights of association, expression and
> contract to further their economic interests.
More fool you.
In spades when the union wont let anyone but union members work there etc.
> I don't get the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's natural rights?
Taint a natural right to monster those who arent interest in having anything to do with a union into joining one.
> The Supreme Court has decided that corporations have
> rights -- now you want us to decide that human beings don't?
Nope.
WangoTango
says...
> Anarcissie wrote
> > AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>
> >>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> >>> excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> >>> demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
> >> making people independent contractors because the Obama
> >> Administration wants to make it too easy for unions to be formed
> >> amongst other "fariness" regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>
> > It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> > exercising the rights of association, expression and
> > contract to further their economic interests.
>
> More fool you.
>
> In spades when the union wont let anyone but union members work there etc.
there is a problem.
>
> > I don't get the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's natural rights?
>
> Taint a natural right to monster those who arent interest in having anything to do with a union into joining one.
>
> > The Supreme Court has decided that corporations have
> > rights -- now you want us to decide that human beings don't?
>
> Nope.
All a union does is attempt to wrest rightful control of a company and
give it to themselves.
The auto makers are prime examples.
Look at the benefit overhead/$10000 of product and compare it with ANY
other industry. The big three were coerced into untenable contracts by
the unions and government backing of those unions and look at them now.
No money, crappy, over priced products, and the unions bitching because
they are scaling back or closing down operations.
*Anarcissie*
> In article <7tbat5F40...@mid.individual.net>, rod.speed....@gmail.com
> says...
>
> > Anarcissie wrote
> > > AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
> > >> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>
> > >>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> > >>> excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> > >>> demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
> > >> making people independent contractors because the Obama
> > >> Administration wants to make it too easy for unions to be formed
> > >> amongst other "fariness" regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>
> > > It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> > > exercising the rights of association, expression and
> > > contract to further their economic interests.
>
> > More fool you.
>
> > In spades when the union wont let anyone but union members work there etc.
>
> Exactly, when a person is FORCED into joining a union to get a job,
> there is a problem.
It depends on the union's contract with the employer. I don't
see any reason why one group of people are forbidden to make
an exclusive contract with another. Such contracts, as for
sales territories, copyrights, production quotas and so forth
are made all the time between businesses. But when we
come to employees, it seems you want to impose second-
class citizenship on them. Why is that? Don't you believe
in the rights of expression, association, and contract for
everyone? Or are they only for rich people?
Rod Speed
> WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed rod.speed....@gmail.com wrote
>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>>>>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
>>>>>> excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
>>>>>> demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
>>>>> making people independent contractors because the Obama
>>>>> Administration wants to make it too easy for unions to be formed
>>>>> amongst other "fariness" regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>>>> It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
>>>> exercising the rights of association, expression and
>>>> contract to further their economic interests.
>>> More fool you.
>>> In spades when the union wont let anyone but union members work there etc.
>> Exactly, when a person is FORCED into joining a union to get a job, there is a problem.
> It depends on the union's contract with the employer.
Nope.
> I don't see any reason why one group of people are
> forbidden to make an exclusive contract with another.
No surprises there, you actually are that stupid.
> Such contracts, as for sales territories, copyrights, production
> quotas and so forth are made all the time between businesses.
Different matter entirely to restricting who can work there to those who belong to the union, fool.
> But when we come to employees, it seems you
> want to impose second- class citizenship on them.
You're lying now.
> Why is that?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Don't you believe in the rights of expression, association, and contract for everyone?
There is no such 'right' to force anyone who wants to work there to join the union, fool.
> Or are they only for rich people?
Wota fucking wanker.
Nickname unavailable
god you are stupid.
Nickname unavailable
> On Feb 8, 12:51 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 9:45 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> > > excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> > > demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just making
> > people independent contractors because the Obama Administration wants
> > to make it too easy for unions to be formed amongst other "fariness"
> > regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>
> It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> exercising the rights of association, expression and
> contract to further their economic interests. I don't get
> the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's
> natural rights? The Supreme Court has decided that
> corporations have rights -- now you want us to decide that
> human beings don't?
>
you are correct, all a union is is legal representation for the
little guy, and the wealthy and powerful hate that.
Nickname unavailable
because you are stupid. thats why.
Nickname unavailable
> In article <7tbat5F40...@mid.individual.net>, rod.speed....@gmail.com
toyota has closed down all of their non-union assembly plants in the
u.s.a.
Nickname unavailable
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:21:50 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You need to educate yourself--Obama has stated he wants to take away
> >your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
> >not. That is the "too easy" part. He thinks unions should be able to
> >send out thugs who say, "You want to sign up for the union, right?
> >Hey, nice car..be a shame if something happened to it in the lot while
> >you were at work. You do want to sign this card, right?"
>
>
yes.
> _________
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
Shrikeback
Card Check is a stoopid idea, which has about
as much chance of passing now as Cap'n Trade.
*Anarcissie*
> On Feb 8, 1:59 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 12:51 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 9:45 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the lame
> > > > excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not increase
> > > > demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just making
> > > people independent contractors because the Obama Administration wants
> > > to make it too easy for unions to be formed amongst other "fariness"
> > > regulations that destroy competitiveness.
>
> > It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people
> > exercising the rights of association, expression and
> > contract to further their economic interests. I don't get
> > the "too easy" part -- it should be difficult to exercise one's
> > natural rights? The Supreme Court has decided that
> > corporations have rights -- now you want us to decide that
> > human beings don't?
>
> you are correct, all a union is is legal representation for the
> little guy, and the wealthy and powerful hate that.
Well, I would like to see a rational liberal / libertarian
argument -- one that starts out assuming people have
the usual rights -- against unions or the closed shop;
but I don't think I've ever seen one. All one sees is
cursing and swearing (Hi, Rod!) and the usual
cracks about the Mafia, crime, violence and so
forth -- which have nothing to do with the question.
It's amazing -- a Net full of libertarians, and half
of them don't appear to begin to understand their
own ideology. A little reading, a little study, a
little thinking appears to be indicated.
Rod Speed
Because the argument is too obvious to bother with.
> All one sees is cursing and swearing (Hi, Rod!) and
> the usual cracks about the Mafia, crime, violence and
> so forth -- which have nothing to do with the question.
> It's amazing -- a Net full of libertarians, and half of them
> don't appear to begin to understand their own ideology.
Or dont bother with fools like you.
> A little reading, a little study, a little thinking appears to be indicated.
Taking your hand out of your pants in your case.
Zerkon
> How do we prevent the flagrant exploitation of America’s working people?
First step: Do not be exploited.
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:21:50 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
> >not. That is the "too easy" part. He thinks unions should be able to
> >send out thugs who say, "You want to sign up for the union, right?
> >Hey, nice car..be a shame if something happened to it in the lot while
> >you were at work. You do want to sign this card, right?"
>
Believe what, unions strongarm people into signing the cards? Perhaps
you need to look at what their tactics have been.
Look who has run the Teamsters behind the scenes for years--it was not
the Boy Scouts.
I had to be in a union as a condition of employment in the 1980s. It
wasn't until 5-7 years ago that it came out they were controlled in
part by Paul Castellano and the Gambino Crime Family. I remember the
union letters about how they were trying to organize Purdue Chicken
back then. Later I read it was Big Paul who was directing them to try
and leave his Dial Poultry alone.
Are you too stupid to see all this?
AZDuffman
How so?
Who has opened plants in the USA since 1908? TOYOTA!
Who has on balance closed plants in the USA while building in Mexico
since then? GM!
Read something besides your union letter and "The Daily Worker."
Nickname unavailable
Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
run forest, err sarah run:)
please click on the link to see a idiot in action, preaching to other
idiots.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93375?fp=1
• Sarah Palin
• Palin's Palm Holds the Answers
• by Mike Krumboltz
• 7 hours ago
•
• Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same.
• The former vice presidential candidate seems to have been caught
using curious crib notes during an interview this past weekend at the
high-profile Tea Party Convention in Nashville. While speaking about
her top political priorities, Ms. Palin gazed at her hand in a rather
suspicious manner.
• Later, Web researchers zoomed in on her left palm and found the
following words scrawled in black ink: "Energy, Budget cuts (with
"budget" crossed out), Tax, Lift American Spirits." In an ironic twist
during the speech, Ms. Palin worked in a jab against President Obama's
often-mocked use of TelePrompTers. You can watch the clip below or
check out a close-up here.
•
• Following the flap, the Web went wild. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC
mocked Ms. Palin by relying on her own crib notes to recap highlights
from Palin's appearance. Her keynote speech, it should be noted, had
the crowd on its feet. "Run, Sarah, run," the crowd chanted (as in
"please run for president in 2012").
• But palm-gate wasn't the only bit of news sparked by Palin. Her
defense of Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "retards" raised eyebrows,
as well. On Fox News Sunday, the anti "r-word" crusader contended that
Limbaugh had used the word in the context of political humor and
satire. Earlier in the week, the difference between her angry reaction
to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's use of the "slur" and a
more restrained response to Limbaugh's made from some awkward fallout.
Web searches on "sarah palin on fox news" and "palin limbaugh" have
both surged as the controversy swirled.
• Sarah's husband, Todd Palin, has also been back in the news. The
self-proclaimed former "first dude" of Alaska was revealed to be quite
active in state business. According to recently uncovered emails, Todd
Palin was "involved in a judicial appointment, monitored contract
negotiations with public employee unions, received background checks
on a corporate CEO, added his approval or disapproval to state board
appointments and passed financial information marked 'confidential'
from his oil company employer to a state attorney."
Nickname unavailable
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aBeLPYUWhYJY
Toyota Recall Cost Will Pass $2 Billion, Lawyers Say (Update1)
By Margaret Cronin Fisk
Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s
largest automaker, will push the cost of recalls linked to sudden
acceleration past a $2 billion company estimate for warranty payments
and lost sales, customer lawyers say.
People who purchased Toyota vehicles in the U.S. have filed at least
34 class action lawsuits against Toyota, seeking damages that range
from loss of car value to a return of profits. Toyota faces at least
12 individual lawsuits claiming deaths or injuries caused by unwanted
acceleration of vehicles. Customer lawyers said they’re considering
filing dozens more.
In similar class actions against carmakers, some customers settled
claims by taking discount coupons for future purchases, most of which
were never used. Toyota customers will demand cash, said attorney
Michael Louis Kelly, who has filed two such suits in California. The
Kelley Blue Book, the used-auto pricing service used as a guide in
private-party transactions, reported last week that values of Toyota
vehicles had already suffered a loss of up to 3 percent of resale
value.
“The damages could be in the billions of dollars in the loss of value
alone,” Kelly said in an interview. “I don’t think we’re talking about
coupons under any circumstances.”
In a Feb. 4 earnings call, Toyota, based in Toyota City, Japan,
estimated it will have to spend $1.12 billion on warranty expenses and
will lose as much as $895 million in lost sales over the recall. It
also reported about $23 billion in cash and near cash.
No Cost Estimate
Mike Michels, a Toyota vice president of corporate communications,
declined to comment on the potential loss, saying the company didn’t
have an estimate on potential litigation costs. He said the company
had liability insurance, without elaborating on its extent, and that
it did not cover warranty costs, which were budgeted before the
recalls.
In the earnings call, Toyota didn’t provide details on any reserves to
cover the costs of its recalls, which affect 5.6 million vehicles in
the U.S. and Canada, not including Prius and other hybrid vehicles
that may be recalled to fix a company- recognized defect in their
automatic-braking system.
Toyota fell 1.1 percent to 3,280 yen today in Tokyo. Its American
depositary receipts, each representing two ordinary shares, fell
$1.86, or 2.5 percent, to $72.85 in New York Stock Exchange composite
trading. Toyota’s market value tumbled 19 percent through Feb. 5 from
Jan. 20, just before recalls were announced to fix sticky-accelerator
pedals.
Class Actions
Class actions claiming product defects rarely go to trial in the U.S.,
usually settling for cash or coupons or a combination, court records
show. Coupon-only settlements frequently have little participation by
consumers, reducing the ultimate cost to manufacturers, past
settlements show.
Ford in 2007 settled a four-state class action offering $500 discounts
to owners of the company’s Explorer sport-utility vehicles after a
tire recall. By June 2009, less than 1 percent of eligible consumers
used the vouchers for new Fords.
Toyota’s recalls won’t cover losses by consumers, requiring a cash
settlement, Kelly said.
“Toyota will do what they think they should do to fix these
automobiles, but I don’t expect them to reimburse for the lost value
of these cars,” he said.
Lawsuits claiming personal injuries or deaths may cost the company
more, said law professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond in
Virginia.
Personal-Injury Cases
“It’s important to distinguish the personal-injury cases from the
product-disappointment or lemon cases,” he said in an interview. “The
latter are worth a lot less, in terms of payment.”
The adverse publicity over recalls may also affect the attitudes of
prospective jurors hearing the death and injury cases, he said. That
would drive up the cost of settling or taking these cases to trial,
Tobias said.
“All of this can color the juries’ view on the cases that do go to
trial,” Tobias said. “The company seems less trustworthy, more worried
about the bottom line than safety.”
A change in juror attitudes will affect cases that have nothing to do
with unintended acceleration, said attorney John Kristensen of
O’Reilly Collins in San Mateo, California.
Kristensen represents the family of Michael Levi Stewart, 18, who died
when his 1991 Toyota pickup truck rolled over into a ditch in Idaho
Sept. 15, 2007. The lawsuit, which claims a defect in the steering
relay rod, is set for trial in November.
‘Goes to Credibility’
“I’m happy to be going to trial,” Kristensen said. Every prospective
juror will have heard about the sudden-acceleration claims and may be
less likely to believe Toyota, he said. “Part of it goes to their
credibility. I don’t know if they can afford to take a case to trial
this year.”
The class actions were spurred by multiple recalls by Toyota. Most
were filed after the company’s Jan. 26 decision to stop U.S. and
Canadian production and sales of eight models to fix defective
accelerator pedals. Almost 8 million Toyota vehicles have been
recalled worldwide.
The number of lawsuits has been growing daily since. Beyond the U.S.
suits, at least eight class actions have been filed by Canadian owners
of Toyota and Lexus models
More than half of those suing the company allege a defect in the
electronic control system, contending that company fixes -- replacing
floor mats and adjusting sticky accelerator pedals with a shim --
don’t correct the defect.
These additional claims, if proven, will increase the cost to
consumers and Toyota, Kelly said.
“The Kelley Blue Book has already devalued these vehicles and that was
when they thought it was going to be resolved with the carpet and the
shim in the pedal.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Margaret Cronin Fisk in
Southfield, Michigan, at mcf...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 8, 2010 17:40 EST
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 7:10=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:21:50 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >You need to educate yourself--Obama has stated he wants to take away
>> >your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
>> >not. =A0That is the "too easy" part. =A0He thinks unions should be able =
>to
>> >send out thugs who say, "You want to sign up for the union, right?
>> >Hey, nice car..be a shame if something happened to it in the lot while
>> >you were at work. =A0You do want to sign this card, right?"
>>
>> Are there really people stupid enough to believe this shit?
>
>Believe what, unions strongarm people into signing the cards? Perhaps
>you need to look at what their tactics have been.
>
>Look who has run the Teamsters behind the scenes for years--it was not
>the Boy Scouts.
>
>I had to be in a union as a condition of employment in the 1980s. It
>wasn't until 5-7 years ago that it came out they were controlled in
>part by Paul Castellano and the Gambino Crime Family. I remember the
>union letters about how they were trying to organize Purdue Chicken
>back then. Later I read it was Big Paul who was directing them to try
>and leave his Dial Poultry alone.
>
>Are you too stupid to see all this?
You clearly are too stupid to see that the bad you see is what is
known as a "non-representative sample". Also known as "selection
bias" Look it up and get back to me with questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chazwin
There are other issues such as clawing back money for tools and
equipment supplied by the employer.
Taking money for wear and tear on business equipment.
Pushing bad payments back onto workers who take money for the company,
such as bad cheques and fraud.
Laying people off in the middle of the day in quiet periods to reduce
wage bills.
AZDuffman
> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>
> run forest, err sarah run:)
OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. Or introducing
himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
almsot as smart as she is!
At least Sarah knows there are 50 states and "57 Varieties" and not
the other way around.
And at least conservatives know the differnece between what Sarah said
and what Tina Fey said.
Michael Price
> In what has been described as “the crime wave no one talks about,”
> billions of dollars worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers
> in the United States every year. The scope of these abuses is as
> staggering as it is wrong and only now are people beginning to take
> notice.
>
> -paying employees far less than the legal minimum wage,
>
instruction. Provided the workers knowingly consent to
work for such a wage they're clearly not being stolen from.
The deal is made and whatever you think about it's moral
qualities it's a deal, not a theft. If the workers were told they'd
get one wage and instead got another that would be fraud, but
if they understood the wage it's nowhere near theft.
> -purposefully misclassifying employees as independent contractors,
Again providing the employees know that they are being so
classified it is not theft. They choose to accept the conditions
the deal implies. All it is is another case of not obeying the
government's rules.
>
> -illegally denying workers overtime pay
>
Again provided the workers agree to it it's not theft.
> -cheating on hours
Ok, that's simple fraud, unless it's known beforehand that
the employer does this. In which case it's merely disguising
a lower wage than legally required, which is not theft.
>
> -failing to contribute payroll taxes
>
That's resisting theft, not theft.
> -skipping the last paycheck
>
> -appropriating tips
>
> How do we prevent the flagrant exploitation of America’s working
> people?
>
> Ask your friends and family if they have been ripped off by an
> employer, or classified as an "independent contractor," or been paid
> straight time for overtime. It's hard to find someone who has not been
> cheated at work.
>
I find that very hard to believe. Cheating your workers is cheating
the people who can most easily retaliate.
> These are the kinds of crime that doesn't make the evening news leads,
> but affects millions. Wage theft is a practice the government barely
> bothers to police.
Recently in Australia we had a "Go home on time day" to encourage
workers not to do unpaid overtime. The fact that we needed it proves
that the so-called "set" wages, both government minimum wages and
union award rates are a joke and should be ignored (as they are in
reality).
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Wage-Theft-America-Millions-Americans/dp/159558...
AZDuffman
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 10:43 am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
> >> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
> >> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
> >> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>
> >> run forest, err sarah run:)
>
> >OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
>
> >Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
> >graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. Or introducing
> >himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>
> teleprompter? Here he is speaking extemporaneously for over an hour.http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/29/multimedia/1247466796266/ob...
>
> He was kicking ass so badly Fox news decided it was time to cut away
> to something else. LOL.
Seems like you are the one getting desperate. YouTube "Obama Off
Teleprompter" and see what you get. The fact that your link is from
The NY Times shows likely bias, unlike FNC which is a balanced
coverage. FNC likely broke away because no normal person wants to
watch an hour of Obama. Liberal defenders like yourself who would pay
to drink his bathwater are another story.
They guy is a teleprompter-reading empty suit. His record uring the
last year proves it.
hal
>On Feb 9, 10:43=A0am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
>> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
>> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
>> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>>
>> =A0run forest, err sarah run:)
>
>OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
>
>Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
>graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. Or introducing
>himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>
>If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
>almsot as smart as she is!
BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
Harvard Law. Yea right. You rightards are such a hoot.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 1:06=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 9, 10:43=A0am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
>> >> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
>> >> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
>> >> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>>
>> >> =A0run forest, err sarah run:)
>>
>> >OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
>>
>> >Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
>> >graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. =A0Or introducing
>> >himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>>
>> Gee you're desperation is showing. You wanna see Obama with out a
>> teleprompter? Here he is speaking extemporaneously for over an hour.http:=
>//video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/29/multimedia/1247466796266/ob...
>>
>> He was kicking ass so badly Fox news decided it was time to cut away
>> to something else. LOL.
>
>Seems like you are the one getting desperate. YouTube "Obama Off
>Teleprompter" and see what you get. The fact that your link is from
>The NY Times shows likely bias, unlike FNC which is a balanced
BWWWWWHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!
Oh, man, please stop, you're killing me here.....
*Anarcissie*
The fact is, none of you can deal with it.
Dan Clore
> On Feb 8, 2:59 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 12:51 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 9:45 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the
>>>> lame excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will not
>>>> increase demand. it will do the exact opposite.- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
>>> making people independent contractors because the Obama
>>> Administration wants to make it too easy for unions to be formed
>>> amongst other "fariness" regulations that destroy
>>> competitiveness.
>> It seems to me that a union is nothing more than people exercising
>> the rights of association, expression and contract to further their
>> economic interests. I don't get the "too easy" part -- it should
>> be difficult to exercise one's natural rights? The Supreme Court
>> has decided that corporations have rights -- now you want us to
>> decide that human beings don't?
>
> your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
> not.
This is a common conservative canard about the EFCA, which allows
workers to form unions if a majority of them sign union cards. The EFCA
does *not* take away the workers' right to a secret ballot vote on
whether or not they want to form a union. Under the EFCA, they can still
hold an election if they want to. The EFCA does not, however, allow
*employers* to insist on a vote.
I have a column, "A Libertarian Alternative to the EFCA", here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article6060.html
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
AZDuffman
> >If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
> >almsot as smart as she is!
>
> BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>
> Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
> after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
> Harvard Law. Yea right. You rightards are such a hoot.
It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
not held to any standard.
He only got elected in the first place since he is light skinned and
does not use his negro-dialect after all.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>>>>>> its just done to line the pockets of the businessman. or the
>>>>>>> lame excuse that they need to compete. lowing wages will
>>>>>>> not increase demand. it will do the exact opposite.
>>>>>> What businessmen are lining their pockets? Heck, they are just
Just calling that a fact doesnt make it one, fool.
It is stupid to assume that people have the usual rights -- against
unions or the closed shop when in the real world they do not.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 1:46=A0pm, hal wrote:
>
>> >If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
>> >almsot as smart as she is!
>>
>> BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
>> after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
>> Harvard Law. =A0Yea right. =A0You rightards are such a hoot.
>
>It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
>didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
>one.
Bush had a C average and was a cheerleader.
>The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
>straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
>in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
>real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
>not held to any standard.
Yea, horrors he should try to help people.
>
>He only got elected in the first place since he is light skinned and
>does not use his negro-dialect after all.
He got elected because he was a lot smarter and a lot more honest than
your boy.
hal
>On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:52:25 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
><srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
>>didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
>>one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
>>straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
>>in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
>>real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
>>not held to any standard.
>
>LOL.
>
>He seems to have done alright for himself.
Yea, the loser n-------- couldn't do anything better than becoming
president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
James A. Donald
To ask which source is balanced, simply look at any report on an
obscure politician that is bad for that politician, such as
corruption, scandal, or conflict of interest.
If the politician is a democrat, the NY times will not mention it. If
affiliation not mentioned, it is a Democrat. Fox gives Democrat
scandals and Republican scandals equal billing.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
hal
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >> >Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
>> >> >graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. =A0Or introducing
>> >> >himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>> >>
>> >> Gee you're desperation is showing. You wanna see Obama with out a
>> >> teleprompter? Here he is speaking extemporaneously for over an hour.http:=
>> >//video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/29/multimedia/1247466796266/ob...
>> >>
>> >> He was kicking ass so badly Fox news decided it was time to cut away
>> >> to something else. LOL.
>> >
>> >Seems like you are the one getting desperate. YouTube "Obama Off
>> >Teleprompter" and see what you get. The fact that your link is from
>> >The NY Times shows likely bias, unlike FNC which is a balanced
>>
>> BWWWWWHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!
>
>To ask which source is balanced, simply look at any report on an
>obscure politician that is bad for that politician, such as
>corruption, scandal, or conflict of interest.
>
>If the politician is a democrat, the NY times will not mention it. If
>affiliation not mentioned, it is a Democrat. Fox gives Democrat
>scandals and Republican scandals equal billing.
Fox broadcasts almost nothing but anti-Obama and anti-Democrat
propaganda. They never air anything pro-Obama. Never.
Nickname unavailable
you sound like a old company store manager. or you are speaking to a
share cropper:)
Nickname unavailable
you have a extremely low threshold for what you consider as
intelligence.
Nickname unavailable
i see the pro slaver has shown up again.
Nickname unavailable
its called being asked not to come back, and find another school for
light weights.
Les Cargill
> On Feb 8, 7:10 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:21:50 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You need to educate yourself--Obama has stated he wants to take away
>>> your right to vote on if you want to have a union represent you or
>>> send out thugs who say, "You want to sign up for the union, right?
>>> Hey, nice car..be a shame if something happened to it in the lot while
>> Are there really people stupid enough to believe this shit?
>
> Believe what, unions strongarm people into signing the cards? Perhaps
> you need to look at what their tactics have been.
>
> Look who has run the Teamsters behind the scenes for years--it was not
> the Boy Scouts.
>
That didn't happen in a vacuum. Back when cities were "ethnic",
immigrants were often disenfranchised. The unions grew up
after TR took away the "spoils system" that kept a lid on the
pot.
Then FDR effectively "legitimized" them when he needed access
to the docks to get stuff moving at the start of Lend-Lease.
You can't just say "oooooh - criminals" because it's a much richer
story than that. The Stallone movie "FIST" does a *reasonable*
job explaining this.
> I had to be in a union as a condition of employment in the 1980s. It
> wasn't until 5-7 years ago that it came out they were controlled in
> part by Paul Castellano and the Gambino Crime Family. I remember the
> union letters about how they were trying to organize Purdue Chicken
> back then. Later I read it was Big Paul who was directing them to try
> and leave his Dial Poultry alone.
>
> Are you too stupid to see all this?
>
Organized crime grows up where there is anarchy. Not all unions were
criminally connected - just some. All fallout from TR's "meritocracy"
movement.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
FOX claims to be able to keep the polemics side (O'Reilly)
separate from the news division. I don't watch any TV news, so
I don't know.
>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Feb 9, 1:46 pm, hal wrote:
>
>>> If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
>>> almsot as smart as she is!
>> BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
>> after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
>> Harvard Law. Yea right. You rightards are such a hoot.
>
> It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
> didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
> one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
> straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
> in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
> real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
> not held to any standard.
>
But this makes no sense. He worked a ward politician's career path.
That's how it gets done. For the first 120+ years of this country's
existence, that's how Yankees got in politics to start with. Southerners
generally came from the landowning class.
You can say "corruption! Boss Tweed!" but you'd be toeing the Hearst
paper line. It's just propaganda.
> He only got elected in the first place since he is light skinned and
> does not use his negro-dialect after all.
*SMACK* :)
--
Les Cargill
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:05:13 -0800, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:52:25 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
>>> didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
>>> one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
>>> straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
>>> in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
>>> real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
>>> not held to any standard.
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> He seems to have done alright for himself.
>
> Yea, the loser n-------- couldn't do anything better than becoming
> president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
>
Becoming... is far and a way different from being a competent President.
He should have known he was ill equipped to be successful.
--
Michael Price
So you have.
Michael Price
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
>
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 10:43=A0am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
> >> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
> >> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
> >> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>
> >> =A0run forest, err sarah run:)
>
> >OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
>
> >Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
> >graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. Or introducing
> >himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>
> >If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
> >almsot as smart as she is!
>
> BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>
> Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
> after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
> Harvard Law. Yea right. You rightards are such a hoot.
>
know of no other person who attained that distinction without there
being some evidence he deserved it. There is literally no documentary
evidence that Obama wrote a thesis let alone a good one. There is no
evidence that he understands constitutional law, despite being editor
of the Harvard Law Review. The reason is that he never wrote an
article for a law review. He was _editor_ and never wrote an article,
before or during his editorship. For rational people that would
strike alarm bells.
>
> >At least Sarah knows there are 50 states and "57 Varieties" and not
> >the other way around.
>
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> >If the politician [of the scandal] is a democrat, the NY times will
> >gives Democrat scandals and Republican scandals equal billing.
hal:
> Fox broadcasts almost nothing but anti-Obama and anti-Democrat
> propaganda. They never air anything pro-Obama. Never.
Let us see what the hits come up when we do a google news search for
Obama on Fox:
http://news.google.com/news/search?as_q=obama&as_nsrc=fox
There is only one negative hit in the first page. All the others are
neutral or favorable, for example "Obama to Unveil Healthier School
Lunch Program"
You are just so used to wall to wall 24 hours worship of the glorious
obamessiah, that a lull in the chorus of worship looks like an attack
to you.
Fox is fair and balanced, the rest of the mainstream media are
screaming strident propaganda. Observe the frothing at the mouth
coverage of Sarah Palin, while when Obama reads a banal speech written
a second rate scriptwriter, the New York Times has multiple orgasms.
James A. Donald
> > obscure politician that is bad for that politician, such as
> > corruption, scandal, or conflict of interest.
> >
> > If the politician is a democrat, the NY times will not mention it.
> You actually have proof of this? We can wait.
<http://www.google.com./search?q=%22Name+that+party%22+scandal>
Michael Price
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:05:13 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:52:25 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
> ><srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you lefties
> >>didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when Bush had
> >>one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has given
> >>straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put little stock
> >>in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have made it in the
> >>real world instead of becoming a "community activist" where you are
> >>not held to any standard.
>
> >LOL.
>
> >He seems to have done alright for himself.
>
> Yea, the loser n-------- couldn't do anything better than becoming
> president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
>
we've had 8 years proving that you don't have to be competent to get
that job. And he hasn't been competent. A year in and we find that
people no longer think of Bush as being unusually incompetent. At
least Bush had the excuse that the results of his policies weren't
completely obvious. Obama got in after it all exploded and STILL
continued the policies that caused economic collapse, general chaos in
diplomacy and military affairs and decline in every policy area I can
think of.
Michael Price
And yet Obama doesn't pass it.
Michael Price
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:52:25 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
Really? Then why has he continued almost all of the worst of Bush's
policies? Why has he stabbed the left wing in the back so
comprehensively? All he would have had to do to be popular by now is
to be something other than Bush with shoe polish. Anyone with the
intelligence of a C average student could have told him that but he
didn't know it. If he's smart why is there so little documentary
evidence of it? And why does he keep making mistakes that only a
stupid person would make?
Michael Price
But the objections to a card check system would have to be open
right? So the
problem with intimidation and social blackmail remain.
Rod Speed
> On Feb 10, 7:12 am, hal wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:05:13 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:52:25 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you
>>>> lefties didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when
>>>> Bush had one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has
>>>> given straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put
>>>> little stock in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have
>>>> made it in the real world instead of becoming a "community
>>>> activist" where you are not held to any standard.
>>
>>> LOL.
>>
>>> He seems to have done alright for himself.
>>
>> Yea, the loser n-------- couldn't do anything better than becoming
>> president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
>>
> Did he ever get a job that actually requires competence? Because
> we've had 8 years proving that you don't have to be competent to get
> that job. And he hasn't been competent. A year in and we find that
> people no longer think of Bush as being unusually incompetent. At
> least Bush had the excuse that the results of his policies weren't
> completely obvious. Obama got in after it all exploded and STILL
> continued the policies that caused economic collapse,
Like hell he did with what caused the GFC.
> general chaos in diplomacy and military affairs
Another pig ignorant lie with Iraq.
He hasnt even been stupid enough to fuck over Pakistan like he proposed in the election campaign.
> and decline in every policy area I can think of.
Just because all you have is ear to ear dog shit.
Michael Price
> On Feb 10, 5:46 am, hal wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> > <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 9, 10:43=A0am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Remember those quizzes you had on the state capitals back in junior
> > >> high? Oh, the pressure! The temptation to write "Pierre, Olympia,
> > >> Dover, Albany" on the inside of your hand was overwhelming, wasn't it?
> > >> But you resisted. Maybe Sarah Palin should have done the same
>
> > >> =A0run forest, err sarah run:)
>
> > >OH MY GOD-SHE USED NOTES FOR A SPEECH!
>
> > >Compare that to Obama who cannot even talk to a room full or sixth
> > >graders without a teleprompter to give him every word. Or introducing
> > >himself because the teleprompter made a mistake.
>
> > >If he was somehow able to increase his IQ by 50 points he would be
> > >almsot as smart as she is!
>
> > BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>
> > Yea, right, Palin who barely got a journalism degree with a C average
> > after attention about 6 different colleges compared to Cum Laude at
> > Harvard Law. Yea right. You rightards are such a hoot.
>
Rod Speed
Like hell he did with GM.
> All he would have had to do to be popular by now
> is to be something other than Bush with shoe polish.
He's fresh out of magic wands to wave to fix the GFC with.
Dan Clore
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:48:33 GMT, hal wrote:
>> To ask which source is balanced, simply look at any report on an
>> obscure politician that is bad for that politician, such as
>> corruption, scandal, or conflict of interest.
>>
>> If the politician is a democrat, the NY times will not mention it.
>> If affiliation not mentioned, it is a Democrat. Fox gives Democrat
>> scandals and Republican scandals equal billing.
>>
> FOX claims to be able to keep the polemics side (O'Reilly) separate
> from the news division. I don't watch any TV news, so I don't know.
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.newshounds.us/
Michael Price
Letting bankers get away with stuff basically. Which he continued.
>
> > general chaos in diplomacy and military affairs
>
> Another pig ignorant lie with Iraq.
Yeah, stroll down the main street in Baghdad, then I'll believe you.
>
> He hasnt even been stupid enough to fuck over Pakistan like he proposed in the election campaign.
>
No the drone attacks are completely imaginary, damn that reality
with it's liberal bias.
> > and decline in every policy area I can think of.
>
> Just because all you have is ear to ear dog shit.
Good argument.
seeker
> In what has been described as “the crime wave no one talks about,”
> billions of dollars worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers
> in the United States every year. The scope of these abuses is as
> staggering as it is wrong and only now are people beginning to take
> notice.
>
> -paying employees far less
> than the legal minimum wage,
>
> employees as independent contractors,
>
> overtime pay
>
>
> -failing to contribute payroll taxes
>
>
> -appropriating tips
>
> How do we prevent the flagrant exploitation of America’s working
> people?
>
> Ask your friends and family if they have been ripped off by an
> employer, or classified as an "independent contractor," or been paid
> straight time for overtime. It's hard to find someone who has not been
> cheated at work.
>
> but affects millions. Wage theft is a practice the government barely
> bothers to police.
>
Some major retailers like Walmart,Home Depot,etc classify supervisors
as "managers" without any authority and essentially force them to work
without pay to get all their work requirements done
hal
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> He got elected because he was a lot smarter and a lot more honest than
>> your boy.
>
> Really? Then why has he continued almost all of the worst of Bush's
>policies? Why has he stabbed the left wing in the back so
>comprehensively? All he would have had to do to be popular by now is
>to be something other than Bush with shoe polish. Anyone with the
>intelligence of a C average student could have told him that but he
>didn't know it. If he's smart why is there so little documentary
>evidence of it? And why does he keep making mistakes that only a
>stupid person would make?
Change comes slowly. He can't suddenly throw everybody bad out of the
place overnight. Especially not in the middle of an economic crisis.
I can't say for sure the guy wants to do the right thing. But at this
point at least he needs to be given a chance.
Nickname unavailable
i am not a free trader. you are.
Nickname unavailable
i bet he is brighter than bush:)
Nickname unavailable
i have repeatedly said some of the same things about him, but he is
still smarter than bush, and of course palin.
Nickname unavailable
its always refreshing to see someone who is not captured by some
crank ideology, and has empathy for others.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Obama is the *HARVARD VILLAGE IDIOT*
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Government doesn't cure economic problems, the government is part of the
economic problems.
- Beam Me Up Scotty -
Anarcissie
wrote:
Someone who hires the likes of Larry Summers,
retains Bush-era illegal, unconstitutional
surveillance, re-invades Afghanistan, and comes up
with a "health care" bill that if enacted will do
nothing but force people to support insurance
companies which were the problem in the first place is
not interested in change. He has been given a chance
and we have observed what he did with it.
The Democrats' shtick since 2006 has been "We may
be corrupt conservatives but at least we're not crazy."
I don't know how much further they can go with that
even with Sarah Palin helping out.
Shrikeback
From my experience, what usually happens
in these cases is a class-action lawsuit.
My wife worked at a place once that had
one of these lawsuits. The windfall doubled
her income for that month's worth of work.
Nice.
Anarcissie
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> There is no such 'right' to force anyone who wants to work there to join the
> union, fool.
Ah, Rod Speed, faithful and true. All the others saw
where the argument was going, and dropped out. But
let's try again. Here is what I wrote:
"It depends on the union's contract with the employer.
I don't see any reason why one group of people are
forbidden to make an exclusive contract with another.
Such contracts, as for sales territories, copyrights,
production quotas and so forth are made all the time
between businesses. But when we come to employees, it
seems you want to impose second-class citizenship on
them. Why is that? Don't you believe in the rights
of expression, association, and contract for everyone?
Or are they only for rich people?"
I'm guessing we'll hear only from you-know-who.
The Net's in sad decline when the right wing have no
one else to defend their ideas.
Rod Speed
>>>> retrogro...@comcast.net wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> It is called "working your way thru college." And somehow you
>>>>>> lefties didn't think and Ivy League Education was important when
>>>>>> Bush had one. The thing is thankd to grade inflation Harvard has
>>>>>> given straight As to virtually everybody since 1980, so I put
>>>>>> little stock in Obama's grades. If he was so smart he would have
>>>>>> made it in the real world instead of becoming a "community
>>>>>> activist" where you are not held to any standard.
>>>>> LOL.
>>>>> He seems to have done alright for himself.
>>>> Yea, the loser n-------- couldn't do anything better than
>>>> becoming president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
>>> Did he ever get a job that actually requires competence? Because
>>> we've had 8 years proving that you don't have to be competent to get
>>> that job. And he hasn't been competent. A year in and we find that
>>> people no longer think of Bush as being unusually incompetent. At
>>> least Bush had the excuse that the results of his policies weren't
>>> completely obvious. Obama got in after it all exploded and STILL
>>> continued the policies that caused economic collapse,
>> Like hell he did with what caused the GFC.
> Letting bankers get away with stuff basically. Which he continued.
He doesnt have the legal authority to do anything about that, only Congress does.
He is attempting to get Congress to change things in that area.
A change as big as that takes time to get done, if it can actually be done.
>>> general chaos in diplomacy and military affairs
>> Another pig ignorant lie with Iraq.
> Yeah, stroll down the main street in Baghdad, then I'll believe you.
Thats not GENERAL chaos, just one place rather comprehensively
fucked by the fool that ran things before he did.
>> He hasnt even been stupid enough to fuck over
>> Pakistan like he proposed in the election campaign.
> No the drone attacks are completely imaginary,
Thats not fucking over Pakistan, fool. Thats just fucking over a few talibums etc.
Which the Pakistanis are trying to do themselves anyway.
>>> and decline in every policy area I can think of.
>> Just because all you have is ear to ear dog shit.
> Good argument.
Your shit in spades.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> There is no such 'right' to force anyone who
>> wants to work there to join the union, fool.
> Ah, Rod Speed, faithful and true. All the others
There were fuck all 'others', fool.
> saw where the argument was going, and dropped out.
Those with even half a clue never bothered with your shit in the first place. As usual.
> But let's try again. Here is what I wrote:
> "It depends on the union's contract with the employer.
> I don't see any reason why one group of people are
> forbidden to make an exclusive contract with another.
More fool you when it involves their employment.
> Such contracts, as for sales territories, copyrights, production
> quotas and so forth are made all the time between businesses.
But none of those prevent you from doing your own thing instead.
> But when we come to employees, it seems you
> want to impose second-class citizenship on them.
Usual utterly bogus line. Nothing second class about being
free to not bother with any damned union if you dont like them.
> Why is that?
Because they have a clue, unlike fools like you.
> Don't you believe in the rights of expression,
> association, and contract for everyone?
I believe in the right to not have anything to do with any union if I dont like the way they operate.
> Or are they only for rich people?"
It isnt just rich people involved in what you listed.
> I'm guessing we'll hear only from you-know-who.
Yep, everyone else ignores your shit.
> The Net's in sad decline when the right wing
> have no one else to defend their ideas.
You wouldnt know what that real right wing was if it bit you on your lard arse.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> ...
> > Don't you believe in the rights of expression,
> > association, and contract for everyone?
>
> I believe in the right to not have anything to do with any union if I dont like the way they operate.
Why do you think you have a right to intervene in a contract
between an employer and a union?
Rod Speed
Because that purported 'contract' has been obtained using the worst thuggery and should be outlawed.
Even if it had not been obtained that way, it should be outlawed, just like
we have outlawed a contract to sell your first born into slavery etc etc etc.
Why should any group be allowed to force anyone to join a union ?
That should be banned like discrimination on the basis of religion or race already is.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Anarcissie
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> ...
> >>> Don't you believe in the rights of expression,
> >>> association, and contract for everyone?
> >> I believe in the right to not have anything to do
> >> with any union if I dont like the way they operate.
> > Why do you think you have a right to intervene in
> > a contract between an employer and a union?
> Because that purported 'contract' has been obtained using the worst thuggery and should be outlawed.
You see, you can't stick to the question. You have
to introduce the notion of crime to a question which
has nothing to do with crime, unless of course you
consider organizing a union to be a crime in itself,
in other words, you don't believe that people have
rights of expression, association and contract. Of
course, many anti-union/fascist types seem to
actually believe this.
> Even if it had not been obtained that way, it should be outlawed, just like
> we have outlawed a contract to sell your first born into slavery etc etc etc.
You can't distinguish between voluntary association
and slavery?
> Why should any group be allowed to force anyone to join a union ?
No one is forced to join a union by a closed
shop; they can get a job somewhere else --
obviously.
> That should be banned like discrimination on the basis of religion or race already is.
Completely unrelated and irrelevant.
But thank you for playing, anyway. Your
fascist buddies seem to have run away.
Without your help I'd have to invent a sock-
puppet to create the opportunity to show how
invalid the ideas you subscribe to are.
*Anarcissie*
They might not be all that dumb. It is politically
advantageous in the United States to appear to be
stupid, especially with the suburban and rural
electorates. Remember, half of the population is
below average, and they like to elect their own
when possible. The president doesn't need to be
smart with God on his side, etc.
You really have two different styles, with no saying
what's behind them: the country-boy (-girl) aw-
shucks shit-kicker style, and the city slicker wise-
guy style. They're just styles.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Don't you believe in the rights of expression,
>>>>> association, and contract for everyone?
>>>> I believe in the right to not have anything to do
>>>> with any union if I dont like the way they operate.
>>> Why do you think you have a right to intervene in
>>> a contract between an employer and a union?
>> Because that purported 'contract' has been obtained
>> using the worst thuggery and should be outlawed.
> You see, you can't stick to the question.
You're lying, again. That is a vital part of what is being discussed.
> You have to introduce the notion of crime to a question
You're lying, again. That sort of thuggery isnt even illegal.
> which has nothing to do with crime,
It is when that sort of activity is used to monster individuals
into signing up for the union that they are not interested in joining.
> unless of course you consider organizing a union to be a crime in itself,
Nope, just that sort of thuggery used to sign up those who would
not otherwise sign up for the union they are not interested in.
> in other words, you don't believe that people have
> rights of expression, association and contract.
I never ever said that they cant join the union if they want to, you silly little pathological liar.
> Of course, many anti-union/fascist types seem to actually believe this.
And hordes more cant see why anyone should have
to join any damned union if they choose not to do that.
You goons get to go and fuck yourselves on that.
>> Even if it had not been obtained that way, it should be outlawed, just like
>> we have outlawed a contract to sell your first born into slavery etc etc etc.
> You can't distinguish between voluntary association and slavery?
It aint voluntary if you cant work there unless you join the union, fuckwit.
>> Why should any group be allowed to force anyone to join a union ?
> No one is forced to join a union by a closed shop;
> they can get a job somewhere else -- obviously.
They are however forced to join the union if they want to
work there and the employer has offered them a job there.
That should be banned, as I said.
>> That should be banned like discrimination on the basis of religion or race already is.
> Completely unrelated and irrelevant.
Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
> But thank you for playing, anyway. Your
> fascist buddies seem to have run away.
Nope, they have just decided that fools like you are not worth bothering with.
> Without your help I'd have to invent a sock-
> puppet to create the opportunity to show
> how invalid the ideas you subscribe to are.
Pity you havent managed to do that.
Rod Speed
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> Remember, half of the population is below average,
You dont know that either with those that matter, those who bother to vote.
> and they like to elect their own when possible.
Or that in spades. If that was true, Obummer would not have got elected.
There just arent that many half white lawyers.
> The president doesn't need to be smart with God on his side, etc.
> You really have two different styles, with no saying
> what's behind them: the country-boy (-girl) aw-
> shucks shit-kicker style, and the city slicker wise-
> guy style.
So which one was Eisenhower and Truman ?
> They're just styles.
They are in fact just your silly little fantasys.
Michael Price
> In article <4b72c0b8.2771...@news.newsguy.com>, hal
You don't understand, if change goes any faster people will get
scared. We need to phase out slavery and lynching slowly, it's
not something that can just happen because the legislature
says so.
Michael Price
His mother must be so proud.
Michael Price
> In article <7tbiukFhc...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > There is no such 'right' to force anyone who wants to work there to join the
> > union, fool.
>
> Ah, Rod Speed, faithful and true. All the others saw
> where the argument was going, and dropped out. But
> let's try again. Here is what I wrote:
>
> "It depends on the union's contract with the employer.
> I don't see any reason why one group of people are
> forbidden to make an exclusive contract with another.
> Such contracts, as for sales territories, copyrights,
> production quotas and so forth are made all the time
> between businesses. But when we come to employees, it
> seems you want to impose second-class citizenship on
> them. Why is that? Don't you believe in the rights
> of expression, association, and contract for everyone?
> Or are they only for rich people?"
>
for an all-union workplace employers have the right to contract
for a nonunion one.
*Anarcissie*
> On Feb 11, 3:45 am, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7tbiukFhc...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > There is no such 'right' to force anyone who wants to work there to join the
> > > union, fool.
>
> > Ah, Rod Speed, faithful and true. All the others saw
> > where the argument was going, and dropped out. But
> > let's try again. Here is what I wrote:
>
> > "It depends on the union's contract with the employer.
> > I don't see any reason why one group of people are
> > forbidden to make an exclusive contract with another.
> > Such contracts, as for sales territories, copyrights,
> > production quotas and so forth are made all the time
> > between businesses. But when we come to employees, it
> > seems you want to impose second-class citizenship on
> > them. Why is that? Don't you believe in the rights
> > of expression, association, and contract for everyone?
> > Or are they only for rich people?"
>
> I agree with this, but if workers have the right to contract
> for an all-union workplace employers have the right to contract
> for a nonunion one.
I haven't seen anyone arguing that they don't
or can't. Just that for some reason employees
or potential employees somehow lose their
rights in relation to employers.
Nickname unavailable
true. nascar is a sport? where southerners drive around in circles,
and go no where.
Nickname unavailable
you must be jealous:)
Rod Speed
Then you need to get out more, BAD.
> Just that for some reason employees or potential employees
> somehow lose their rights in relation to employers.
Like hell they do. ALL they lose is the capacity to monster
those who do not want to belong to a union into joining a union.
James A. Donald
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:36:48 -0800, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >FOX actually has been caught several times referring to republicans
> >caught in scandal as "Democrats".
> >
> >Foley comes to mind.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA
> >Note they did it more than once.
> >
> >And then they did it with SC Gov. Stanford:
> >http://wizbangblue.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-lies-and-calls-republican-gov-sanford-a-democrat.php
Both errors were promplty corrected.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
James A. Donald
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:07:03 -0800, James A. Donald
> >> > If the politician is a democrat, the NY times will not mention it.
> >
> >> You actually have proof of this? We can wait.
> >
> ><http://www.google.com./search?q=%22Name+that+party%22+scandal>
> Show us a NYT article. I'm not seeing anything like you said in this.
Michael Price
Aren't "yellow dog" contracts illegal in the US?
Anarcissie
<a4bead3e-a484-4216...@z10g2000prh.googl
egroups.com>,
Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:17�am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 5:48�pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 3:45�am, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but no one has been arguing about labor law as far
as I know. It's been rights theory -- see above. The
contention was that people in or forming unions do not
have a right to make and enforce closed-shop contracts
with employers. I agree that there is much in labor
law that is contrary to liberal rights theory.
I have sometimes seen the prohibition of closed-shop
contracts as justified by the supposed imbalances of
labor law -- this was how the Cato Institute justified
its illogical support of Right-To-Work laws -- but all
I have seen in the present discussion on anti-union
side of the issue has been naked class prejudice.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind, as always.