Bush is Good!
CrackerDog
We all know bush is good ... so .....
PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR WORLD TODAY
RE-ELECT President George W. Bush!!!
Find out more at:
"This is the last time I'll address this issue here."
--
┊俩k犬兄g
We need your help at www.GeorgeBush.com
CrackerDog
Michael W. Scott
up a slave under Bush.
Locutus
"Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona end
> up a slave under Bush.
>
Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
leaving the country.
Why should employers have to over compensate their employees under threat of
a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at it.
Jabba the Chandler
-jabba
"CrackerDog" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message news:<wZ4Ec.4495$lh4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
shadoobe
"Locutus" <Loc...@locutus.com> wrote in message
news:10e2ttd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> > Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona end
> > up a slave under Bush.
> >
>
> Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
> leaving the country.
>
people for subsitance level wages,in poor and unsafe conditions,if they get
hurt let them go and hire somebody else
Manufacturing jobs are leaving the country so employers can have dirt
cheap labor and dont have to worry about enviormental precautions...AS a
matter of fact since Nafta started the minimum wage in Mexico has gone
Down...
Corporate greed sucks.."W" is a divider not a uniter....he should be run out
of Washington on a rail
>
>
Locutus
"shadoobe" <shad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z6fEc.301$m91...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Locutus" <Loc...@locutus.com> wrote in message
> news:10e2ttd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> > > Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona
end
> > > up a slave under Bush.
> > >
> >
> > Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
> > leaving the country.
> >
> Unions are antiquated...hahahahaha...thats hilairious..sure just work
> people for subsitance level wages,in poor and unsafe conditions,if they
get
> hurt let them go and hire somebody else
>
It's a free market. You should make what your job is worth, no more, no
less, if you don't like the conditions and/or pay, then work elsewhere.
Safety is already regulated through local and federal guidelines.
> Manufacturing jobs are leaving the country so employers can have dirt
> cheap labor and dont have to worry about enviormental precautions...AS a
> matter of fact since Nafta started the minimum wage in Mexico has gone
> Down...
>
Look, my company makes a product, we choose to have them made in Pakistan.
While labor is a lot cheaper in Pakistan, having to pay duties, freight, and
having our products held in customs sometimes for several months is not
cheap. We could probably pay people $10 an hour to produce are product
locally and end up with about the same costs, however we can't find people
locally that will give us the quality of work we need for $10 an hour.
> Corporate greed sucks.."W" is a divider not a uniter....he should be run
out
> of Washington on a rail
>
People think corporations or companies are a big cash cow with endless
supply of money. Just like you and me, they have expenses and
responsibilities to meet, and the VAST majority of corporations are only
slightly profitable. When those corporations are no longer profitable, there
is no reason for them to remain in business. That means those jobs go away.
Corporations making money is good for ALL OF US.
It is short sightedness such as this that just drives me crazy. Please try
and see past your own paycheck.
Locutus
"Jabba the Chandler" <chris.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75628f6f.04062...@posting.google.com...
Yeah, this MUCH worse than moveon.org....
gk1
> We all know bush is good ... so .....
yes, he is. good at:
* sending our best and bravest to die in a war that did not make our
country any safer, and has almost certainly caused MORE people to hate
america than before
* lying to the american people to get them to go along with said war,
and getting away with it (no cum stained dress, so who cares, right?)
* borrowing from the future and especially those who will be needy in
the future, to give to the wealthy. you, of course, are aware that
tax cuts in a deficit situation are not cuts at all, they are forced
loans that you will have to pay back, plus interest, assuming you have
20 or so more working years? do you think the wealthiest 1% will be
paying 40% of the tab?
* shredding the Constitution. so much for all those protections, eh?
you know, pesky little things like the right to a lawyer, the right
for a speedy trial, the right for a jury of your peers, the right to
be indicted? jose padilla may be a scumbag, but he is an american
citizen who was stripped of all those rights for allegedly THINKING
about blowing up a dirty bomb. wow. american citizens, arrested for
THOUGHTCRIME, and held indefinitely without charges, trial, or even
legal access. but hey, we should just TRUST the Emperor and his
goons, right? they just want to protect us, bless their hearts.
hence initiatives like TIA, stalinist schemes to have neighbors spy on
neighbors, etc.
* letting industries control the agencies that are supposed to be
regulating them. oil companies writing our energy policy. car
companies setting up sham "freedom car" progams to forestall
meaningful regulations of emissions and fuel economy. logging
companies writing the forest management policy. etc.
* eliminating the separation of Christ and state. oh, you weren't
aware that non-Christian groups have gotten only a couple percent of
the federal grants to Christ-based initiatives? who cares right, all
those heathens will burn in hell anyway
> PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR WORLD TODAY
yes, please do.
> RE-ELECT President George W. Bush!!!
how can we re-elect him when he wasn't elected in the first place?
the man was appointed our Emperor by the Supreme Kangaroo Court (or,
as some may call them, the Imperial Appointers).
G
Eric Margheim
"gk1" <g...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:9f4515ba.04062...@posting.google.com...
I'd respond point-by-point but the fact the 90% of what you have claimed is
false or subjective, it's not worth it. I'll just respond to the last
point. The recounts after the fact showed that Bush would have won
Florida. Funny how we never heard much about that. You can bet if the
votes would have favored Gore it would have been a huge story.
Eric Margheim
"ArchieLeach" <ca...@grant.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9517757C7A...@24.25.9.43...> news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny:
>
> > Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona end
> > up a slave under Bush.
>
> government education you are!
Well, technically one was just a misuse of the wrong word not a misspelling.
And everyone knows that "gona" is spelled "gunna". :)
Jeff Mayner
> "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
>> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona
>> end up a slave under Bush.
>>
>
> Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
> leaving the country.
That's just plain stupid.
>
> Why should employers have to over compensate their employees under
> threat of a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at it.
And you'd just love to see us go further and further back towards the
1880's, right?
You are a maroon.
Jeff
Locutus
"Jeff Mayner" <jeffm...@yahoonospam.com> wrote in message
news:XOSdnZUrkcZ...@giganews.com...
> Locutus wrote:
> > "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> >> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona
> >> end up a slave under Bush.
> >>
> >
> > Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
> > leaving the country.
>
> That's just plain stupid.
>
Is it? That is the primary reason I have my companies products manufactured
in another country. Are you in a better posistion to know better than I? If
so, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
> >
> > Why should employers have to over compensate their employees under
> > threat of a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at it.
>
> And you'd just love to see us go further and further back towards the
> 1880's, right?
>
Lame. I am sure you can do better than that. Please put forth some form of
evidence, or at least some form of opinion, why you feel the way you do.
> You are a maroon.
>
You can leave my skin color out of this.
Vic Romano
news:10e3f3b...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "Jeff Mayner" <jeffm...@yahoonospam.com> wrote in message
> news:XOSdnZUrkcZ...@giganews.com...
>> Locutus wrote:
>> > "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>> > news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
>> >> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your
>> >> gona end up a slave under Bush.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing
>> > jobs leaving the country.
>>
>> That's just plain stupid.
>>
>
> Is it? That is the primary reason I have my companies products
> manufactured in another country. Are you in a better posistion to know
> better than I? If so, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on
> this.
>
Hold up a sec there pilgrim. Are you telling us that when you have to
decide where to have your company's (note correct orthography) products
manufactured, your first and foremost concern is that unions are
responsible for manufacturing jobs leaving the country? And because of
this you choose to manufacture your company's products overseas? In order
to help the unions ship more jobs overseas? Man, that's some twisted
logic. Help me out - what does your company produce? So I can boycott it.
>> >
>> > Why should employers have to over compensate their employees under
>> > threat of a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at it.
>>
>> And you'd just love to see us go further and further back towards the
>> 1880's, right?
>>
>
> Lame. I am sure you can do better than that. Please put forth some
> form of evidence, or at least some form of opinion, why you feel the
> way you do.
>
You are condemning unions. Thus, it is certainly logic to think that you
would prefer to live in a time before there were unions. The only thing
lame here is your response.
>> You are a maroon.
>>
>
> You can leave my skin color out of this.
>
Right you are Ken.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Locutus
"Vic Romano" <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95179A7B29...@130.133.1.4...
> "Locutus" <Loc...@locutus.com> wrote in
> news:10e3f3b...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Jeff Mayner" <jeffm...@yahoonospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:XOSdnZUrkcZ...@giganews.com...
> >> Locutus wrote:
> >> > "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> >> >> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your
> >> >> gona end up a slave under Bush.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing
> >> > jobs leaving the country.
> >>
> >> That's just plain stupid.
> >>
> >
> > Is it? That is the primary reason I have my companies products
> > manufactured in another country. Are you in a better posistion to know
> > better than I? If so, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on
> > this.
> >
> Hold up a sec there pilgrim. Are you telling us that when you have to
> decide where to have your company's (note correct orthography) products
> manufactured, your first and foremost concern is that unions are
> responsible for manufacturing jobs leaving the country? And because of
> this you choose to manufacture your company's products overseas? In order
> to help the unions ship more jobs overseas? Man, that's some twisted
> logic. Help me out - what does your company produce? So I can boycott it.
>
>
Thanks for the grammer lame! When you have nothing intelligent to say, thats
something you can always fall back on.
The reason I have our Company'S products produced elsewhere is due to the
inflated cost of labor in the United States.
I am personal friends with the owners of quite a few different contract
manufacturing companies, I would have them manufacturer our products but
they cannot compete with the overseas labor. They primarily depend on making
products that would be hard to produce overseas, or products made in
qauntities that would not make sense to have produced overseas. If they
could pay their employees a reasonable wage (say, $8-$10 an hour) than he
would be able to compete.
I have to have our products produced at the lowest price, because my
competitors do, and I have to remain competitive. This is all really simple,
and if you want to boycott companies that do this, then you will pretty much
have to boycott all companies that are not small mom & pop shops. You are
certainly free to do that.
> >> >
> >> > Why should employers have to over compensate their employees under
> >> > threat of a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at it.
> >>
> >> And you'd just love to see us go further and further back towards the
> >> 1880's, right?
> >>
> >
> > Lame. I am sure you can do better than that. Please put forth some
> > form of evidence, or at least some form of opinion, why you feel the
> > way you do.
> >
> You are condemning unions. Thus, it is certainly logic to think that you
> would prefer to live in a time before there were unions. The only thing
> lame here is your response.
>
Yes, that is perfect logic. I want to travel in time....
Savage Lizard
> It's a free market. You should make what your job is worth, no more, no
> less, if you don't like the conditions and/or pay, then work elsewhere.
> Safety is already regulated through local and federal guidelines.
Good luck getting brainwashed Unionistas to hear anything you have to say.
They are entitled to work whatever job they like, at whatever pay they deem
fair. It's the company's job to do whatever necessary to accomodate their
desires.
--
Savage Lizard
Vic Romano
news:10e3gsb...@corp.supernews.com:
It was spelling. That's different from grammar. More and more I get the
impression that you are a silly teenager along the lines of bullyo -
always bragging about your vast financial empire while barely passing 8th
grade math.
> The reason I have our Company'S products produced elsewhere is due to
> the inflated cost of labor in the United States.
Yeah well I hear ya. Too bad we can't have back those nifty days of slave
labor. Better exploit foreign workers while you can.
> I am personal friends with the owners of quite a few different
> contract manufacturing companies, I would have them manufacturer our
> products but they cannot compete with the overseas labor. They
> primarily depend on making products that would be hard to produce
> overseas, or products made in qauntities that would not make sense to
> have produced overseas. If they could pay their employees a reasonable
> wage (say, $8-$10 an hour) than he would be able to compete.
> I have to have our products produced at the lowest price, because my
> competitors do, and I have to remain competitive. This is all really
> simple, and if you want to boycott companies that do this, then you
> will pretty much have to boycott all companies that are not small mom
> & pop shops. You are certainly free to do that.
>
No, I just want to boycott yours. What is the name of your company?
>> >> >
>> >> > Why should employers have to over compensate their employees
>> >> > under threat of a strike? That is blackmail anyway you look at
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >> And you'd just love to see us go further and further back towards
>> >> the 1880's, right?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Lame. I am sure you can do better than that. Please put forth some
>> > form of evidence, or at least some form of opinion, why you feel
>> > the way you do.
>> >
>> You are condemning unions. Thus, it is certainly logic to think that
>> you would prefer to live in a time before there were unions. The only
>> thing lame here is your response.
>>
>
> Yes, that is perfect logic. I want to travel in time....
>
This is a wild leap of illogic. Trying to recreate the past is not "time
travel." It is pathetic however. So what was the name of your company
again? Bullyo, Inc?
BTW, you have the absolute perfect e-mail address.
Locutus
> It was spelling. That's different from grammar. More and more I get the
> impression that you are a silly teenager along the lines of bullyo -
> always bragging about your vast financial empire while barely passing 8th
> grade math.
>
Yes, you have found me out.
Why is it you cannot discuss something in a mature reasonable manner? I have
stated my opinions, what my opinions are based on, and all you can do is
insult me.
I apologize if my opinion offends you.
Vic Romano
news:10e3knk...@corp.supernews.com:
Pot - Kettle - Black.
> Thanks for the grammer lame! When you have nothing intelligent to say,
> thats something you can always fall back on.
Not an insult? I guess it depends on what your definition of is is.
> I apologize if my opinion offends you.
>
Your opinion amuses me. You still haven't told me the name of your
company. What could you be hiding? It's the first rule of usenet: anyone
who claims to own a business is probably in high school. Second rule of
usenet: a persons real personal wealth is inversely proportional to what
they claim.
Locutus
>
> Your opinion amuses me. You still haven't told me the name of your
> company. What could you be hiding? It's the first rule of usenet: anyone
> who claims to own a business is probably in high school. Second rule of
> usenet: a persons real personal wealth is inversely proportional to what
> they claim.
>
Well, there are certainly exceptions to any rule. However, in this case I
wouldn't want my opinions to reflect upon my company.
I never claimed to be wealthy, where did I say that? Oh, if you own a
company (or claim to) you are automatically wealthy (or claim to be) right?
Does it make a difference if I do or don't own a business? That really isn't
necessarily relavant to what we are discussing. I think you are focusing on
that so you will not have to debate the subject.
Do you think it is fair that an employer should have to pay employees higher
wages, or provide benefits, on the basis of a union strike threat? An
employer should have to pay employees whatever is takes to have someone fill
the posistion and get the job done. If an employer can get someone to do a
job for $10 an hour, why is reasonable to expect an employer to pay a person
$20 an hour to do that job?
badlands420
>If an employer can get someone to do a
> job for $10 an hour, why is reasonable to expect an employer to pay a
person
> $20 an hour to do that job?
Because John Kerry thinks they should.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Savage Lizard
> Do you think it is fair that an employer should have to pay employees
higher
> wages, or provide benefits, on the basis of a union strike threat? An
> employer should have to pay employees whatever is takes to have someone
fill
> the posistion and get the job done. If an employer can get someone to do a
> job for $10 an hour, why is reasonable to expect an employer to pay a
person
> $20 an hour to do that job?
You make too much sense. It all seems so simple, but the fact is that most
people are too stupid to get it. Since THEY have decided that some wage is
not acceptable, YOU must pay what they deem acceptable, or you are the
asshole. Never mind that there are tons of people who would happily do that
work for less. The government has established a minimum wage, there are
numerous labor laws on the books, and if an employer steps out of line they
can be sued or taken to the Labor Board. I'm pretty sure nobody will be
getting exploited in the near future.
I'm sure Vic would pay a guy $20 an hour to mow his lawn when there is
another guy advertising that he'll do it $10 an hour. I guess Vic pays
union plumbers at a higher rate to come out and fix his plumbing. I'm sure
he uses union electricians when there's a wiring problem at his house. And
he probably never shops anywhere that employs non-union employees.
Yeah right.
--
Savage Lizard
lepersquall
during strikes, but do the people striking?? no. unions were created
for the workers, but have since become a corporation themselves.
"CrackerDog" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message news:<o25Ec.4502$lh4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
gk1
they did, the corporate "liberal" media buried it in every story.
take this one for example...
Media recount of Florida ballots has mixed findings
Washington Times ^ | Monday, November 12, 2001 | By August Gribbin
The media group's recount of the Florida presidential ballots
released yesterday is the latest in a series of analyses that promise
to make the Bush-Gore election the most studied in U.S. history. Top
Stories
• 'We honor all veterans'
• Alliance will stop at Kabul
• Nuclear claim questioned
• Bush use of 'Palestine' a 'deliberate' signal
• Mazar-e-sharif savors freedom after Taliban exit
• Final third of car tax will not be cut
The report presented the findings from a monthslong review of
roughly 175,000 ballots that either didn't register as votes for
president or registered as votes for more than one candidate when they
were run through the counting machines on Election Night.
The recount was sponsored by the Associated Press; CNN; the
Tribune Co., publisher of a chain of papers including the Chicago
Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, and five other newspapers — the New
York Times, The Washington Post, the Palm Beach Post, the St.
Petersburg Times and the Wall Street Journal.
The ballot examination was conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center, a nonprofit survey affiliate of the University of
Chicago.
Results of the recount had been scheduled for release in early
September. But release was put off after the September 11 attacks,
because, as one writer noted, the attacks relegated the 2000 election
fight to a footnote in history. Other reports said the group wished to
avoid raising controversy during a period of national unity.
Ballot reviews before these latest results — and aside from the
official, government vote recounts in many of Florida's 67 counties —
included:
• USA Today, the Miami Herald and the Herald's parent Knight
Ridder hired an accounting firm to scrutinize each of 61,195
then-available "undervotes," or ballots that registered for no
candidate.
The three-month, $500,000 study was conducted to show who would
have won the election if the Supreme Court had not halted the recounts
ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in early December.
The review found that Mr. Bush would have retained his slim
victory margin. However, if the counters were generous in awarding
dubious ballots, Mr. Bush's victory margin would have increased.
• The accounting firm of Johnson, Lambert & Co. conducted an
independent audit of ballots in six Florida counties. The result: a
net gain of 116 votes for Mr. Bush.
• The Palm Beach Post reviewed 10,600 undervotes cast in
Miami-Dade County balloting.
The state-certified vote in Miami-Dade had given Al Gore 328,808
votes and Mr. Bush 289,533. The Post's reviewers concluded that Mr.
Bush should have been given 251 additional votes and Mr. Gore 245.
• Several Florida newspapers joined the Miami Herald and USA
Today to conduct a review of 176,000 ballots that the counting
machines had rejected Nov. 8, 2000. The examination counted more than
111,000 votes that had been cast aside because they seemed to contain
votes for more than one candidate.
If the most stringent standard were applied when counting these
rejected ballots, Mr. Bush would have won again, this time by 407
votes.
If the most permissive standard were applied, Mr. Gore would have
won by 332 votes.
blahblahblah yadda yadda yadda
bush wins
bush wins
bush wins
last sentence: oh yeah, gore won...but no one really reads articles to
the end, so you probably aren't going to see this, and even if you do,
the headlines, which is all people are going to see and talk about,
say "BUSH WINS".
LOL gotta love that liberal media....
G
Michael W. Scott
Michael W. Scott
Michael W. Scott
Michael W. Scott
ArchieLeach wrote:
"Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in
Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona end up a slave under Bush.
Four misspelled words in two sentences. What a ringing endorsement for government education you are!
Michael W. Scott
with free insurance. next theory?
Empty3
"Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:DsqEc.152$pr3...@news02.roc.ny...
asdf
>Right guys?
>We all know bush is good ... so .....
>
>
>PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR WORLD TODAY
>
>RE-ELECT President George W. Bush!!!
>
>Find out more at:
>
>www.GeorgeBush.com
>
>"This is the last time I'll address this issue here."
Get this out of the sports newsgroups you fucking moron.
David Loewe, Jr.
<wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Yes we do get paid while on strike and the Union provides the familes
>with free insurance. next theory?
When my mother got sick and couldn't work, the union pulled her health
insurance.
>
>lepersquall wrote:
>
>>unions dont give a damn about there workers, they still get paid
>>during strikes, but do the people striking?? no. unions were created
>>for the workers, but have since become a corporation themselves.
>>
>>"CrackerDog" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message news:<o25Ec.4502$lh4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>
>>>>Right guys?
>>>>We all know bush is good ... so .....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR WORLD TODAY
>>>>
>>>>RE-ELECT President George W. Bush!!!
>>>>
>>>>Find out more at:
>>>>
>>>>www.GeorgeBush.com
>>>>
>>>>"This is the last time I'll address this issue here."
--
"The flame rises but it soon descends
Empty pages and a frozen pen
You're not quite lovers and you're not quite friends
After the thrill is gone,"
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
The Baba
>>When my mother got sick and couldn't work, the union pulled her health
insurance.>>
The union doesn't offer the insurance, the company does...And almost all
company insurance offers you plans when you leave because of sickness, or
other valid reasons...If not, it was a shitty company...
--
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
C:\DOS, C:\DOS\RUN, RUN\DOS\RUN!
Scott
> up a slave under Bush.
We're all slaves to the U.S. Government, because of being OVER TAXED!
Not to mention fucking California!
And what party do you think will raise taxes?
Gee wiz .. and what party do you think will cut taxes?
In a perfect world I'd put Libertarians in charge, but since that is not
possible .. I'll stay with the Republican party.
The Baba
>>and what party do you think will cut taxes?>>
If you make over $200,000, you get a nice cut...But if you're a regular
working shcmuck, the repugnican tax breaks don't do shit for you...
>>I'll stay with the Republican party.>>
Yet another dumbass with blinders on toeing the party line...What's funny is
that I keep asking repugnicans what the fuck has Bush done to keep his job
since the Presidency was handed to him, and you know what, I never get an
answer...
--
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
David Loewe, Jr.
<hoo...@nospamnetzero.net> wrote:
>DL says:
>>>When my mother got sick and couldn't work, the union pulled her health
>insurance.>>
>
>The union doesn't offer the insurance, the company does...And almost all
>company insurance offers you plans when you leave because of sickness, or
>other valid reasons...If not, it was a shitty company...
Um... no.
The union pulled the insurance because she decided that feeding me -
her then teenaged son - was more important than paying her union dues.
Don't sit there and tell me that I'm a liar.
You.
Weren't.
There.
I'll note in passing that her union was notoriously corrupt and Mob
dominated.
Furthermore, how can the company offer insurance in the case of a
skilled tradesman - like a carpenter - who works on jobs he bids on
for various companies as they become available and he is available? Is
TR Hughes going to pay for insurance on a guy working on a Taylor
Morley project? I don't think so.
--
"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic", examine
your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you
still want to do it, wallow in it!"
-Lazarus Long
Locutus
"The Baba" <hoo...@nospamnetzero.net> wrote in message
news:2kg75lF...@uni-berlin.de...
Guess what, if the republican tax cuts don't do anything for you, then you
are hardly paying any taxes anyway. So why should you pay even less?
It reminds me of a story that I once heard:
3 guys go out to dinner every night. Since they are good friends they decide
to split the bill according to how much each of them make.
Because they always order the same thing, the bill is always $100, so the
guy that makes the most money pays for $60 of the bill, and the guy who
makes the second most pays for $30 of the bill, and the guy who only works
part time only pays $10 of the bill.
This goes on for quite sometime. The restaurant owner appreciates their
continued business so he decides to give them $50 off of their bill. Well,
the guy who always pays 60% of the bill thinks he should get 60% of the $50,
the other two guys thinks this is unfair, after all, he makes the most money
so why should he get most of the refund??
Well, this results in a big argument, so the next day the guy who normally
pays 60% of the bill decides not to come to dinner, and the other two guys
are about $23 short when the bill comes.
badlands420
> Yet another dumbass with blinders on toeing the party line...What's funny
is
> that I keep asking repugnicans what the fuck has Bush done to keep his job
> since the Presidency was handed to him, and you know what, I never get an
> answer...
I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm voting for Bush because my taxes
are lower than they were four years ago. Simple as that.
Savage Lizard
> >>and what party do you think will cut taxes?>>
>
> If you make over $200,000, you get a nice cut...But if you're a regular
> working shcmuck, the repugnican tax breaks don't do shit for you...
>
> >>I'll stay with the Republican party.>>
>
> Yet another dumbass with blinders on toeing the party line...What's funny
is
> that I keep asking repugnicans what the fuck has Bush done to keep his job
> since the Presidency was handed to him, and you know what, I never get an
> answer...
That's the same answer I get when I ask Clinton lovers why he was
responsible for the economy being so good.
--
Savage Lizard
Locutus
"Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona end
> up a slave under Bush.
>
How timely, another instance of friggen unions causing my company (and in
return, our employees and customers) problems!
"Dear ----------- Authorized Dealer:
I wanted to give you a heads up that we are experiencing some shipping
delays on incoming products from our factories to our distribution sites.
The expected arrival time of recent shipments changed 5 times for a variety
of reasons. The most recent delay occurred as a result of strike activity.
The news continues to carry stories of independent trucker strikes that are
expected to go through the 5th of July.
The team at ------------ is doing their best to give you reliable delivery
information. We felt it was important that you know that some of the
delivery dates are changing on a daily basis. We appreciate your business
and will continue to do our best to keep you updated. Continue to check our
dealer website for the most current expected delivery dates."
badlands420
> That's kind of a simplistic reason to vote, isn't it? Taxes being low
> is not always a good thing, not when you know you're gonna have to
> pay the piper later on.
Blah, blah, blah.....that's the same shit you people were saying in the 80s.
Reagan's tax cuts and deficit spending were supposed to result in the fiscal
ruination and economic servitude of my entire generation. It didn't happen,
of course, but the left still thinks it can employ the same lame-ass scare
tactics to convince people to elect a tax-and-spend liberal president. It
didn't work in '84 and it ain't gonna work now.
PS- Lower taxes ARE always a good thing, at least if you have a shred of
belief in the principles upon which this republic was founded.
David Loewe, Jr.
mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu (Max Chuang) wrote:
>In article <-JudndtbzJH...@mpowercom.net>,
>That's kind of a simplistic reason to vote, isn't it? Taxes being low
>is not always a good thing, not when you know you're gonna have to
>pay the piper later on.
You'll have to elaborate on your sweeping generalization about having
"to pay the piper later on."
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
David Loewe, Jr.
?
What drugs are you on that distort reality so? Why do they affect your
reading comprehension so badly?
Bush wins *most* recount scenarios.
And I shudder to think about what "the most permissive standard"
implies.
>but no one really reads articles to
>the end, so you probably aren't going to see this, and even if you do,
>the headlines, which is all people are going to see and talk about,
>say "BUSH WINS".
>
>LOL gotta love that liberal media....
--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist."
- Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones
Jeff Mayner
>> That's kind of a simplistic reason to vote, isn't it? Taxes being
>> low is not always a good thing, not when you know you're gonna have
>> to pay the piper later on.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.....that's the same shit you people were saying in
> the 80s. Reagan's tax cuts and deficit spending were supposed to
> result in the fiscal ruination and economic servitude of my entire
> generation.
It didn't? lol... OK, if you say so. Why don't you ask Bush 41 how it
effected his Presidency?
It didn't happen, of course, but the left still thinks it
> can employ the same lame-ass scare tactics to convince people to
> elect a tax-and-spend liberal president. It didn't work in '84 and it
> ain't gonna work now.
So, what you're saying is that a tax break for the rich and spend blithering
idiot is the answer?
>
> PS- Lower taxes ARE always a good thing, at least if you have a shred
> of belief in the principles upon which this republic was founded.
You are so wrong. What's sad is that the proof could be right in front of
you and you'd still not believe it. We are, to this very day, still paying
for Reagan. Folks like you dismiss it though 'cause you say it was worth it
to kill the Soviet Union.
lol @you
Jeff
Jeff Mayner
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:30:51 +0000 (UTC),
> mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu (Max Chuang) wrote:
>
>> In article <-JudndtbzJH...@mpowercom.net>,
>> badlands420 <bu...@hole.com> wrote:
>>>> Yet another dumbass with blinders on toeing the party
>>>> line...What's funny
>>>> is that I keep asking repugnicans what the fuck has Bush done to
>>>> keep his job since the Presidency was handed to him, and you know
>>>> what, I never get an answer...
>>>
>>> I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm voting for Bush because
>>> my taxes are lower than they were four years ago. Simple as that.
>>
>> That's kind of a simplistic reason to vote, isn't it? Taxes being
>> low is not always a good thing, not when you know you're gonna have
>> to pay the piper later on.
>
> You'll have to elaborate on your sweeping generalization about having
> "to pay the piper later on."
Ronald Reagan?
David Loewe, Jr.
1) That's not an elaboration in any way, shape, manner or form.
2) It doesn't address the comment.
How is doing something that increases tax revenues relate to having to
"pay the piper later on?"
--
"Same dances in the same old shoes
Some habits that you just can't lose.
There's no telling what a man might lose,
After the thrill is gone."
badlands420
> So, what you're saying is that a tax break for the rich and spend
blithering
> idiot is the answer?
All business owners should receive tax relief, so that commerce is
stimulated and more people have jobs. And as far as "tax breaks for the
rich," I don't believe in penalizing people for being successful. I also
believe it's counterproductive to expect business owners to pay for the
expansion of the welfare state when they could be using the same money to
EMPLOY MORE PEOPLE. But hey, if you're more comfortable with the public tit
than you are with a free market economy, that's your business.
badlands420
> How is doing something that increases tax revenues relate to having to
> "pay the piper later on?"
And while we're at it, how is paying the government now preferable to paying
"the piper" later on?
God I love liberal hyperbole. Why bother thinking when you can just spew
catch phrases? Pay the piper later on, tax breaks for the rich, no blood for
oil, blah blah freaking blah.
Safe as Milk
<Loc...@locutus.com> wrote:
> "shadoobe" <shad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Z6fEc.301$m91...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "Locutus" <Loc...@locutus.com> wrote in message
> > news:10e2ttd...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Michael W. Scott" <wcwf...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Ev6Ec.74$nc6...@news01.roc.ny...
> > > > Bush is good if your rich. If your a worker or in a union your gona
> end
> > > > up a slave under Bush.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Unions are antiquated and primarily responsible for manufacturing jobs
> > > leaving the country.
> > >
> > Unions are antiquated...hahahahaha...thats hilairious..sure just work
> > people for subsitance level wages,in poor and unsafe conditions,if they
> get
> > hurt let them go and hire somebody else
> >
>
> It's a free market.
It's a developing oligarchy. There's a reason that economists assert
that there's a bigger gap than ever between the haves and the
have-nots, and its not for want of the have-nots for trying. Fewer and
fewer control more and more. That's a fact. And by the way, it's not a
free market. That's a great idea, but it's not base on fact.
Do you think that tens of millions of Americans are without health
insurance because they don't want to earn the money to afford it? Do
you even know what health insurance costs without employer subsidies?
> You should make what your job is worth, no more, no
> less, if you don't like the conditions and/or pay, then work elsewhere.
> Safety is already regulated through local and federal guidelines.
>
> > Manufacturing jobs are leaving the country so employers can have dirt
> > cheap labor and dont have to worry about enviormental precautions...AS a
> > matter of fact since Nafta started the minimum wage in Mexico has gone
> > Down...
> >
>
> Look, my company makes a product, we choose to have them made in Pakistan.
> While labor is a lot cheaper in Pakistan, having to pay duties, freight, and
> having our products held in customs sometimes for several months is not
> cheap. We could probably pay people $10 an hour to produce are product
> locally and end up with about the same costs, however we can't find people
> locally that will give us the quality of work we need for $10 an hour.
Would they get ten bucks an hour with benefits? Do Pakistanis get
health insurance as a benefit?
>
> > Corporate greed sucks.."W" is a divider not a uniter....he should be run
> out
> > of Washington on a rail
> >
>
> People think corporations or companies are a big cash cow with endless
> supply of money. Just like you and me, they have expenses and
> responsibilities to meet, and the VAST majority of corporations are only
> slightly profitable. When those corporations are no longer profitable, there
> is no reason for them to remain in business. That means those jobs go away.
> Corporations making money is good for ALL OF US.
>
> It is short sightedness such as this that just drives me crazy. Please try
> and see past your own paycheck.
If you take a closer look at yours.
You might want to consider the possibility that the "free market" idea
is a myth. If the living standard of the US declines, which is likely
to happen when the health insurance costs begin to show a cumulative
impact, it will happen because workers, and mostly the middle class,
will have less disposable income available to exercise their function
as consumers, which is what feeds the domestic economy. Manufacturing
and construction jobs are labor intensive, and the higher skilled jobs
bring in better money for more people. As these jobs move abroad and
are increasingly replaced by lower paying service jobs, guess what
happens?
The marketplace has no conscience, no moral code. That's why Barry
Commoner, some 25 years ago, concluded that pure capitalism and
environmentalism cannot mutually co-exist. That's because in the
corporate culture, anything less than earning the most profits at any
cost will increase fears-- of financial collapse.
So, for the the common good, we can preserve our quality of life by
mitigating an overindulgence of the corporate culture. And that takes a
form of government that holds quality of life to be as important as a
positive business climate.
Right now, there's clearly an imbalance between these two forces.
S.a.M.
>
>
--
"I'm matter, you're matter, we're all matter, but it
doesn't matter."
"Never has nothing to do with now." -Don Van Vliet