Fence Straddlers (a/k/a "Moderates")

[boxcar]

Rick wrote the following on another thread recently:

>>
Well, at the risk of being attacked with 3000 word essays, I'll say that right-wingers have at least as many cliches as left-wingers do. You guys who think that a simple political philosopy (on either side) is the answer to everything are pathetic and amusing both at the same time.
>>

Well, Rick, you ran the risk of a 3000-word essay, so now you have no room to complain. :)

The commentary that will follow in the next post is long, but it's thoughtful and depicts accurately, I think, what "middle of the roaders", or "fence straddlers" or "moderates" are really all about -- what makes them tick.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Enjoy! (Although I'm certain there will be plenty out there who will bitterly be gnashing their teeth.) Due to the length of the piece, I will split it up into two posts.

Boxcar
-------------------

The Moderate and His World
by Diane Alden July 12, 2002

Last year, I heard Rush Limbaugh talking to a "moderate" on his radio show. The moderate's "thing" was environmentalism. I suspect he was what Rush refers to as a seminar caller, more an environmentalist than a moderate. But it did get me to thinking about what a moderate is and I came to the following conclusions:

A moderate is neither hot nor cold but enjoys the lukewarm in all his tastes and preferences. From a shower to coffee, a moderate has no desire to know extremes. A moderate is human vanilla pudding without bananas and cookie wafers. A moderate is afraid of great feelings and human passions and thinks that there is something wrong with those who have them or feel them.

A moderate goes on vacation and looks at his watch, missing the sunset out the car window. A moderate views his sleeping child lying on the floor in front of the TV and prays the boy will not make noise during the big game. A moderate makes bets on both teams playing in that game.

A moderate thinks that bipartisanship is more important than principle. That it is better to acquiesce to evil than to fight for good.

A moderate does not want to ruffle feathers. He does not want to allow his child to bloody the bully's nose because then the moderate will have to explain to authorities the nature of a powerful emotion. A moderate will not take a stand for his child in a fight. A moderate will never confront the school system that is promoting the latest folly, because to do so might require him to have opinions contrary to conventional and moderate wisdom.

A moderate will think Kwanzaa is fine and not say a word when Christmas is banned. A moderate will let the local coven of wiccans meet in a school gym but remain silent when the authorities tell students they can't pray before the big game.

A moderate thinks that man has no ability to figure out solutions to his problems. A moderate thinks government is the solution to his problems. A moderate is disturbed by the rich and the poor. A moderate does not like contrasts.

A moderate thinks abortion and euthanasia are fine. His prime directive is to avoid criticism or controversy at all costs. It is easier for him to deny his conscience than to speak up about right and wrong.

A moderate wears his seat belt and believes those who don't should be punished. A moderate thinks roadblocks are a good thing even in a free country in order to catch those who have not buckled up.

A moderate thinks the security gauntlet at airports is acceptable as he tells the ticket agent interrogator that his bag has never left his sight. A moderate unflinchingly produces his two pieces of ID and has no conception of the irony in the words "show me your papers." A moderate will go along with a national ID card and global tracking, and implanting a digital angel under his skin just because the government says it is for his own good.

A moderate will buy the local paper long after it has become a propaganda tool of ideologues. A moderate will contribute to the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy even after he has discovered they have destroyed entire communities with their zealousness or tied up courts for years with useless lawsuits. A moderate will contribute to causes antithetical and destructive of his way of life because others are doing it and he is loathe to appear different.

Moderates are one-size-fits-all folks. For every problem they think there is only one solution. They don't see individual people, regions or groups. Moderates believe in diversity but don't practice it.

Moderates don't believe there are different strokes for different folks. Moderates see a collective mass where everyone walks in unison to the same piper playing the same dirge for all time. Moderates do not make a scene.

(to be continued)

[boxcar]

Moderates believe in progressive ideas but not enough to promote them. They think change as promoted by celebrities or intellectuals must be a good thing so they moderately go along with it. Besides, it is so much more pleasant and easy to let the talking head on the news do it for you.

It is much more fun to think Barbra Streisand knows how things should be than to look into issues. Moderates believe famous people are better equipped for thinking - otherwise they wouldn't be famous.

Moderates do not want to have to think about anything. Thinking might require moderates to be accountable for ideas or actions, and it is preferable to leave that to others.

Moderates think that public education just needs more money to succeed. Moderates think that schools are failing because the classes are too large and the proper new teaching tool has not yet been discovered. Moderates believe whatever the NEA tells them. When their children come home unable to read, moderates know that their kids are illiterate but full of self-esteem.

Moderates think that Social Security will be around forever and just needs more taxes to offer recipients the good life. Moderates think that people should not be responsible for their own lives or their survival - that also would require thinking and effort.

Moderates are comfortable going through life in a daze, half alive, hoping that their problems will be taken care of.

Moderates think the Ten Commandments are too hard on people, too demanding and judgmental. The Ten Commandments, after all, are not merely suggestions but commands to do the right thing.
Moderates think the Constitution is flexible as well, and that it can be changed to suit the political whim of anyone who wants something from the system. To believe otherwise is controversial.

Moderates are not great dreamers, scientists, engineers, writers, poets, actors or politicians. Moderates are uncomfortable with talent or those who have the conviction of their beliefs. They avoid people who are passionate about ideas because that disturbs the bland and uniform world they seek.

Moderates rarely achieve great things nor do they fail at trying to do great things. Moderates are uncomfortable with greatness. Mediocrity is the fruit of the moderate's faith. Excellence is not a moderate virtue; rather, it is suspect, subversive and immoderate.

Moderates are the Germans who turned their heads when the Gestapo pushed the old Jewish women to the ground. Moderates are the ones who walked by as the SS ripped the food from the starving children in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Moderates were those Jews who thought Hitler would never murder ALL the Jews and certainly never them. Moderates thought concentration camps were relocation centers. Moderates believed Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a religious troublemaker for being a partisan Christian in Nazi Germany. Moderates thought Mother Teresa was too involved in other people's lives.

Moderates never got involved in the underground railroad during slavery. Moderates never fought for any idea greater than themselves. Moderates did not give food or clothing or prayers to Washington's Continental Army. Moderates thought Washington unwise to waste his military career on a lost cause.

Moderates watched Joan of Arc burn at the stake. Moderates kept silent when William Wallace was hung, drawn and quartered.

Moderates were mute when the Tuskegee airmen fought hard to take their place as pilots in the Army Air Force in WWII. Moderates were silent when scientists conducted inhuman experiments at that same place.

Moderates watched as FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps. It was FDR, after all.

Moderates have always lined the streets when the bully boys organized the spectacles and parades for Evita Peron or Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin. Moderates gave a pass to Bill Clinton's law breaking because after all the economy was good.

Moderates did not go to Vietnam nor did they protest the war. Moderates stood by while protesters spit on returning veterans. Moderates did not march with Martin Luther King and they did not fight in Da Nang or the valleys of Laos. Moderates stood by and let young men take the abuse from their fellow countrymen when America's elite politicians and policy-makers sent them off to war.

Moderates thought the killing at Ruby Ridge and Waco merely showed the skills of the federal police forces. Moderates hailed the killings because those killed had strong convictions and lived by them. Moderates thought that the killings at Ruby Ridge and Waco were justified.

Every day the moderate passes by the person who falls in the street and turns away.

Moderates have always been, and will always be, the gray people who stand by and do nothing while HELL prevails.

But I thank those who are not moderates. The caring and the passionate ones who are sometimes wrong or mistaken or confused. For it is always the caring and passionate ones who are the transmitters of life and all good things.

Moderates give us neither life nor death but a gray world, built in a vacuum of spiritual poverty, apathy and despair.

Thanks to ALL the un-Moderates for the fire they offer to light these dark ages we are passing through.

[JesseV!!!]

...this long winded con started with "Rush Limpbaugh"! Now I don't have to bother reading it!
I can't take anyone seriously that plays long, satiracle, mock commercials that distort the truth and distract from useful time. R/L is a big fat idiot! lol

Talk about a CULT!...Why won't he run for Prez? Chicken?

Make good use of this Boxy and give me a list of questions so we can see if you can lump me into a catagory. Make them short and quick. I think I fall into a new kind of thinking catagory. One that doesn't go by a book, perhaps. Completly indipendant.

[boxcar]

JesseV!!! sez coming out of the chute:

>>
...this long winded con started with "Rush Limpbaugh"! Now I don't have to bother reading it!
>>

Then boldly challenges and asserts at the end:

>>
Make good use of this Boxy and give me a list of questions so we can see if you can lump me into a catagory. Make them short and quick. I think I fall into a new kind of thinking catagory. One that doesn't go by a book, perhaps. Completly indipendant.
>>

Jesse, here's a hint: Read the two posts and tell me how and where you _don't_ fit in!

Boxcar (who can be pithy too)

[Lefty]

Jesse, actually, Rush's satire emphasizes the truth. And I don't think he wants the pay cut he would take if he were prez.

[Doug]

To someone,

Would one of you folks out there be kind enough to let me know how I can unsubscribe from this thread.

Thanks,

Doug

[boxcar]

Doug wrote:

>>
Would one of you folks out there be kind enough to let me know how I can unsubscribe from this thread.
>>

Uh, oh -- I wonder if this one of the teeth gnashers I anticipated early on?

Boxcar

[Doug]

Boxcar,

I am far from being a tooth gnasher. As a matter of fact, I think some of the STUFF you wrote about was quite interesting.

Just getting tired of being reminded about posts that I am not that interested in. Granted, I made a reply somewhere along the line in the thread but I would just as soon scan this forum when I feel like doing so. Hell, who knows, I'll probably learn some things.

Too many replies and e-mail notices that I am reminded of.

Would you happen to know how I can unsubscibe to this thread?
If so I would appreciate any help you could be.

Doug

[boxcar]

Doug wrote:

>>
I am far from being a tooth gnasher. As a matter of fact, I think some of the STUFF you wrote about was quite interesting.
>>

Whew! You had me worried. I thought I might slip in the ratings this week. :)

But seriously...I'm glad you have enjoyed some of my stuff. And I thought we only received email notifications about thread replies if we participated in thread, i.e. contributed with at least one post. Apparently, I'm wrong, and readers/lurkers (like yourself) wind up with mucho notices. I know I do every single day, but I just delete them all immediately.

But I am pretty sure that if you go and reconfigure your personal preferences, you can choose to not receive any email notifications -- but that would mean none for any of the forums.

Maybe PA can pitch in here and help out by clarifying things.

Regards,
Boxcar

[Rick]

That's exactly what I meant. Someone who thinks of every issue as being right wing vs left wing or Republican vs Democrat decides that someone who thinks independently is a person without an opinion. And he takes thousands of words to get a point across that could be stated in one sentence. Congressmen who don't follow the party line exactly have the same problem. All Republicans are supposed to always be conservatives on every issue and all Democrats are supposed to always be liberals on every issue. We might as well have only two people in congress, maybe Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy.

[Doug]

Boxcar writes,

But I am pretty sure that if you go and reconfigure your personal preferences, you can choose to not receive any email notifications -- but that would mean none for any of the forums.

If anyone can narrow this down a bit for me and let me know if there is a way to unsubscribe to THIS THREAD ONLY.

Thanks,

Doug

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Rick
That's exactly what I meant. Someone who thinks of every issue as being right wing vs left wing or Republican vs Democrat decides that someone who thinks independently is a person without an opinion. And he takes thousands of words to get a point across that could be stated in one sentence. Congressmen who don't follow the party line exactly have the same problem. All Republicans are supposed to always be conservatives on every issue and all Democrats are supposed to always be liberals on every issue. We might as well have only two people in congress, maybe Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy. I thought the meaning of a moderate was neither too far left or too far right,going down the road of life, if you don't stay in your lane you either get hit or end up in the bar ditch.Sometimes you may have to swerve,but usually its for a good reason.Rush is one of those fellas that have all the answers,but most people don't pay attention,cause they know its mainly just talk.If you don't know someone like that in your life,guess what, its you.Too bad that old Tulsa preacher Sam isn't around anymore,I wonder what he would say about Rush.

[Rick]

Well, we all know the guy at the party who thinks he won every argument because he talks louder than everyone else. He usually winds up being a pretty lonely guy by the end of the night.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
That's exactly what I meant. Someone who thinks of every issue as being right wing vs left wing or Republican vs Democrat decides that someone who thinks independently is a person without an opinion.
>>

Thinking "independently" is a far cry from the kind of people Diane Alder described. I don't agree with everyting Limbaugh, Keyes, Coulter, Noonin, Boortz or for that matter with everthing any other Conservative might say on any given issue. But does that make me a fence straddler or a moderate? Not hardly! A true independent thinker is not afraid to think for himself -- an activity the proverbial "moderate" meticulously avoids.

>>
And he takes thousands of words to get a point across that could be stated in one sentence.
>>

I'd love to see you try that trick, sir -- getting all the various charteristics in Alder's commentary into one sentence.

>>
Congressmen who don't follow the party line exactly have the same problem. All Republicans are supposed to always be conservatives on every issue and all Democrats are supposed to always be liberals on every issue. We might as well have only two people in congress, maybe Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy.
>>

As Lefty pointed out, Rush woudn't want any political position due to a huge pay cut. Besides, Alan Keyes would do a much a superior job. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Well, we all know the guy at the party who thinks he won every argument because he talks louder than everyone else. He usually winds up being a pretty lonely guy by the end of the night.
>>

Well, heck, Rick...I'm accustomed to that sort of thing. I usually drink them all under the table, anyway, and there I am -- the last guy standing.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

My point is that saying you think a moderate is a person without an opinion doesn't require all of those concocted examples. Just state it in one sentence and provide a link to the article for those who don't understand the general idea. If you want to you can call almost everyone a moderate if you define that as not being at either extreme, however that doesn't mean that the person is dead in the middle of every issue and can't decide which way to go.

For example, take speed limits. One extreme would be to have no speed limits. Maximum liberty and no government control whatsoever but very dangerous. Let the driver beware. After all, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. The other extreme is to make every speed limit so low that nobody could ever be killed or injured. Maximum security but very inconvenient and inefficient. We have to protect our children, after all. But most people won't take a position at either of those extremes and to say that a "moderate" on speed limits is a person with no opinion is totally ridiculous. In fact there are an infinite number of opinions between the two extremes and the extremes are usually the least intelligent positions. It's the same way with most political issues. Extremism in either direction is just simple-minded thinking.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you click on the PROFILE button above, you should see a list of subscribed threads. It is on this screen that you can unsubscribe from any or all subscribed threads....


==PA

[boxcar]

Rick, your example of setting or determining speed limits is a legit one, but at the same time mundane and amoral in nature. I never said there weren't some gray areas to things like this or to even far weightier issues - matters involving morality or law. But I do take issue with people who see shades of gray in just about everything in life. But what is really ironic about these self-proclaimed "moderates" (which is how the Clintons describe themselves, incidentally) is that in the vast majority of cases, the shades of gray they see are off to the left - and frequently way off the radar screen on a given issue! I'll give one example of what I mean by a significant issue, and how people can inject into an argument numerous needless, useless shades of gray.

Bush made a decision recently to reverse Clinton's decision and not have the U.S. sign on to the ICC (Int'l Criminal Court) -- a darling concept of the U.N. and the EU, particularly. Now, to me Bush made the right decision - no questions, no doubts about it, no gray areas whatsoever -- for me. This is a no brainer because I don't think the U.S. should participate in Europe's experiment that involves surrendering national sovereignty to international bodies. Moreover, such a move would be unconstitutional, violating the Constitution in letter, spirit and intent. For ME - this settles the issue, and I believe my convictions in this matter are principled because they rest in my respect and regard for the Law of the Land - not in the New World Order or in Globalism. To me - this is a black and white issue.

However, there are numerous voices out there criticizing Bush's decision - both at home and abroad. Most of the liberal journalists who are opposed to Bush's "veto" to Clinton's preliminary approval of the treaty see so many shades of gray, they are literally all over the map on the issue insofar as why the U.S. should sign on. And every single argument I've read from a "moderate" or liberal was frivolous and irrelevant to what should be the core determinant in the matter, i.e. the U.S. Constitution. I find it amusing how so many "moderates" seem to overlook this little item -- no doubt attributable to that thick gray fog swirling around their brain.

So, Rick, where is the "middle" ground in this very hot issue? How does the U.S. "half" sign on to the treaty? Can Bush at once accommodate the globalists and constitutional constructionists?

In short, Rick, what I have learned throughout the years about most people, who tend to see shades of gray in virtually everything in life, is that they simply use that as an excuse to project an image of " thoughtful moderation" because they themselves don't wish to appear as extremists on issues - or to take a generally unpopular stand. They do have [strong] opinions, but often wish to camouflage their strength in the gray areas of moderation. As Alden correctly pointed out very early on, "a moderate has no desire to know the extremes". (Essentially, the proverbial moderate always seems to prefer tepid, lukewarm showers to the more stimulating hot or invigorating cold ones.) Why do you think, for example, the philosophy of Moral Relativism has become so widely embraced, deeply integrated into and thoroughly ingrained in our society?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Well, I really don't think you're an extremist, although you may prefer to only state your right wing views. You'd be chastised by other conservatives if you stated an opinion that was even slightly liberal on any issue. You may also be correct in saying that most who call themselves moderates really lean to the left these days. If the Clintons call themselves moderate, why have they referred to right wing conspiracies in the past?

I'm not in favor of the US relinquishing control to any international organization. To me that's a matter of national security, not whether I'd like to see world peace. And please, lets not elect any more overly compassionate Presidents like Jimmy Carter. A very nice, wonderful human being, but hopelessly naive.

Politically, I don't much like the liberal/conservate or left/right labels much. I almost always use the liberty vs security model for making my decisions. You can find Republicans, who are supposedly in favor of less government control, supporting the idea of monitoring everything everyone does in case they might find some criminal activity. And you can find Democrats, who supposedly favor government controls, opposed to reasonable constraints on corporate accounting.

Here's a good example that starts a lot of arguments. How do you deal with drunk drivers? One side would like to see essentially zero tolerance. Anyone who has any alcohol in their blood is impaired so throw them in jail. And while you're at it set up DUI checkpoints on every street. Anyone who's not drunk shouldn't mind proving their innocence. Now, I'm inclined to think that if you really want to improve public safety, you'll try to find out who's really impaired and prevent them from driving. The technology exists to test reaction times, for example, before allowing someone to start their car. And what about improving public transportation so that people will have a better alternative. Most of the people I've known were more impaired when they were sleepy or sick than they were at a .08 blood alcohol level. I'm a great believer in probable cause as a reason for singling out someone as being impaired. Photo radar set at 1 mph over the speed limit is another of my pet peeves. But that's a subject for another rant. Hey, if you want to see impaired drivers, come to Arizona. Most of them are age-impaired here though rather than alcohol-impaired. You can get a license here at 18 that's good until you're 60. Then I think it's renewed every 4 years after that with just a written and vision test. Many 75 and over drivers on the road who never go over about 30 mph even on freeways and veer all over the road. Scary.

[Lefty]

The Clinton's used the label right wing conspiracy to deflect from their guilt. I remember Hillary saying on one of the talk shows(supposedly, before she knew the truth)that the Monica Lewinsky accusation was a rightwing conspiracy. She said if true Bill should resign.
Well, when the world found out the truth she never apoligized and that particular morning show never asked her to. And Bill didn't resign. And the Clinton's just claimed to be moderates. Anyone who wants to highjack one seventh of the economy in the name of Universal Health care is no moderate.

[boxcar]

Hey, Lefty, according to some rumor mills in D.C., we are faced with the real prospects of the Mistress of Darkness running for the presidency in '04. Perfect running mate for her would be that off-the-padded walls nutcase Cynthia Fruitcake McKinney. What a comedy team! Of course, Hillary would play the "straight" part of the team because Ms. Fruitcake would be too busy running around the Beltway like the Unchained Wild Woman from Borneo warning the world about the Evil Republicans and their terrible conspiracies.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Don't think she's got the guys to run against "W" look for her in 08.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Well, I really don't think you're an extremist,
>>

Wow! That's a relief. Jesse thought I was extreme for daring to suggest that he rely upon his own creativity and ingenuity and take matters into his own hands with his neighbor. And another fella thought I was "over the top" for suggesting that that the sinking ship USS Immigration be towed into dry dock for extensive repairs for the next two years.

>>
although you may prefer to only state your right wing views.
>>

What makes you think I have any other kind? :)

>>
You'd be chastised by other conservatives if you stated an opinion that was even slightly liberal on any issue.
>>

Gross exaggeration. Real _thinkers_ tend to respect other true thinkers' opinions, even when they differ.

>>
You may also be correct in saying that most who call themselves moderates really lean to the left these days.
>>

I am correct. The reason is that most Liberals don't want to carry the liberal label around on them. They know that many people think of Liberals as "extremists", and they don't want to be identified in that way. They much prefer the "moderate" label. This is how they're able to accuse anyone even slightly to the right of them as extremists. One extremist calling another an extremist is a dog that doesn't hunt well.

>>
I'm not in favor of the US relinquishing control to any international organization. To me that's a matter of national security, not whether I'd like to see world peace. And please, lets not elect any more overly compassionate Presidents like Jimmy Carter. A very nice, wonderful human being, but hopelessly naive.
>>

And a decent peanut farmer... :)

>>
Politically, I don't much like the liberal/conservate or left/right labels much. I almost always use the liberty vs security model for making my decisions.
>>

Hmm…interesting. I'm not so sure that the two are mutually exclusive ideas, however. What influences my decision-making processes the most is my overall world view.

>>
You can find Republicans, who are supposedly in favor of less government control, supporting the idea of monitoring everything everyone does in case they might find some criminal activity. And you can find Democrats, who supposedly favor government controls, opposed to reasonable constraints on corporate accounting.
>>

Not many march in lockstep with the "official party line". I know I don't. In fact, I'm consider myself to be a hybrid of sorts - a cross between "classic" conservativism and libertarianism.

>>
Here's a good example that starts a lot of arguments. How do you deal with drunk drivers?
>>

That's easy. Revoke their licenses for life and tell them if they want to travel the highways and byways, they had better take public transportation -- or buy a horse. :)

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'd like to lock up the dangerously impaired drunk drivers too, but I'd like some proof that they're really impaired. They've lowered the limits for testing so low that they're catching a lot of not-so-dangerous people and letting the really dangerous ones back out on the road. I don't like the idea of deciding how effective law enforcement is based on how many people are arrested. The same thinking caused the release of many violent felons from our prisons to make room for small-time drug users.

As far as left/right or other labels go, you really have to consider the person's own definition of those terms, which may be different than yours. Middle of the road is a lot more to the right in Arizona than on the east coast, for example.

Immigration is another problem that ought to be handled realistically. Increased border patrols haven't worked. A well enforced guest worker program and some investments (not giveaways) in the Mexican economy to decrease the incentives for them to come here would be helpful. Heck, I'd rather buy oil from them than the Arabs and I'd rather buy goods produced with cheap labor from them than from Asia.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
I'd like to lock up the dangerously impaired drunk drivers too, but I'd like some proof that they're really impaired.
>>

I don't get it. Are you saying the courts are throwing innocent people in the slammer on little or no evidence of the charges brought against them?

>>
They've lowered the limits for testing so low that they're catching a lot of not-so-dangerous people and letting the really dangerous ones back out on the road.
>>

This is neither a law enforcement or a judicial problem. Have you taken your concern to your reps in the state legislature? And, btw, you probably have the whacko MADD group to thank for unrealistic state laws, in many cases. They have become quite a powerful lobby group.

>>
As far as left/right or other labels go, you really have to consider the person's own definition of those terms, which may be different than yours.
>>

Nah. I prefer carefully listening to him or reading what he has to say about issues. That will tell me in pretty short order from whence he really comes. A person can claim to be this or that, and even give a good sounding definition of what he wants you to believe he is. Clever people can play clever word games, but the proof will always be found in the details of their positions or arguments.

>>
Middle of the road is a lot more to the right in Arizona than on the east coast, for example.
>>

Yeah, and what about the Left Coast? :)

I just read some comments today by Donahue that he made about his new show, etc. He even admitted that most Americans don't like the "L" word. For once I agree with him. But, of course, he's a sell-professed Liberal -- and for this, I respect the guy. Just as I respect the self-confessed Socialist in Congress - Bernie Sanders, who sports the "I" designation after his name. But these guys are anamolies.

>>
Immigration is another problem that ought to be handled realistically. Increased border patrols haven't worked.
>>

Agreed. This is why I'm for all using the military, military hardware and military technology on BOTH borders, even if this means instituting the draft. Geraldo Rivera on that new show (Pulse, I think) on the Fox broadcast channel documented how ARABS are being illegally smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. Why am I not surprised?

>>
A well enforced guest worker program and some investments (not giveaways) in the Mexican economy to decrease the incentives for them to come here would be helpful.
>>

I'm not in favor of any "guest worker" program because this would mean granting amnesty to aliens who are already here illegally. Definitely not the right signal to send. And if we were to set such a dangerous precedent for Mexicans, what makes you think for a moment immigrants from other nations wouldn't want the same kind of treatment down the road sometime?

Moreover, I'm against any kind of amnesty program on moral grounds. We're a nation of laws, and we should not start making special exceptions so that some select group of people can break our existing laws.

It would also be unfair to all the Mexicans who have already become citizens or legal residents and who have subjected themselves to our laws and all our bureaucratic red tape to achieve citizenship status. And it would be equally unjust for all the Mexicans who are currently suffering to get through our system in order to become citizens or legal residents.

>>
Heck, I'd rather buy oil from them than the Arabs and I'd rather buy goods produced with cheap labor from them than from Asia.
>>

Gotta wonder why, though, American businessmen aren't exactly banging down doors in Mexico to set up shop. Since they're right next store to us, one would think many large corporations would be doing just that. Instead, America (thanks largely to Comrade Clinton) is enriching China's treasury, and China uses that money to build ICBMs that can now reach our eastern seaboard, and to build a very large and sophisticated navy. Wouldn't surprise me a bit either if that navy would eventually have nuclear powered subs with nuclear warheads. But I digress...I, too, wouldn't mind the U.S. buying oil from Mexico - but only after cutting an entirely different deal from what you have in mind, i.e. get Fox to keep his citizens on his side of the border!

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'm not in favor of amnesty for the reasons you mentioned, but documented foreign workers with limits on their stay are probably in our best interest when there are labor shortages. As it is now, businesses don't really want the government to clamp down on the illegals because they couldn't replace them. If you have a legal alternative in place you can get more support for getting tough on the illegals. I think this is more in line with how the Europeans do it, and it seems to work better.

I just read that the number of illegals has actually increased since we stepped up border patrol staffing. It seems that people are still getting across using more dangerous routes, but the ones already here stay longer because it's too risky to go home to visit relatives. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Yes, California can be pretty liberal at times, but I was thinking more of the Ted Kennedy type liberals in the east. And look at New York with their adopted liberal senator. Those are the people controlling the left, not the Hollywood wackos in California. By the way, have you heard that Arnold Schwartzenegger (did I spell that right?) may run for Governor in CA next time? I saw a special on Hollywood politics where they interviewed various celebrities. All they interviewed except him were very far to the left. He said the reason for that is that when he came here from Austria, Hubert Humphrey was saying the same things that caused him to want to leave. I don't know that much about Austria, but I assume he was referring to Socialists there.

[Rick]

To clarify my position on DUIs I should explain that here in Phoenix they set up massive checkpoints frequently and stop people on their way back from recreation areas. It really gets tedious to have to prove your innocence over and over. Recently, they detained some young people for 30 minutes because the cop said he smelled alcohol. Well, none of them had been drinking and all of them tested at 0.00 but not until they'd been delayed unjustifiably. Obviously the cop didn't smell any alcohol and was just harassing them. Anyone who believes that cops don't do that should watch the current news.

Many years ago they tried the same thing with smog testing in California, pulling over long lines of cars and testing them to see if anyone failed. If you got stuck in one of these things you could be late for work. Fortunately they've developed more realistic methods now for smog testing.

These checkpoints delay thousands of drivers in order to find, maybe 10 people who are legally over the limit. Since they keep lowering the limit, I'm sure the numbers will go up. But how much is this really doing to protect public safety? Having driven behind people before who were obviously impaired I can say that I'm positive that the really dangerous ones aren't very hard to catch anyway.

The widespread assumption that it's OK to force people to prove their innocence rather than find probable cause is a troubling trend. And kids are being taught now that it's perfectly normal for someone to ask for a urine test at any time to prove that they're not doing drugs. It's a very bad precedent to set unless you want Big Brother watching and controlling everything.

[boxcar]

Gotta make this quick 'cause I'm going to be out for most of the day, but I hope I can do a little justice to my counterpoints to what you raised, Rick, about the "guest workers" program.

Here it is in a nutshell: Why should the U.S. be burdened with making more laws, creating more red tape and bearing the overhead for enforcement when the people who will be benefiting the most will the Mexican immigrants? Why shouldn't the burden fall on the Mexican government? Why shouldn't the Mexican government satisfy the economic needs of its own people? And if there is such a huge demand by U.S. businesses for el cheapo labor, why aren't these U.S. corporations banging down Fox's door, seeking tax and investment incentives, etc. so that these corporations would be able to open up shop in Mexico? Why should the U.S. government be the one jumping through all kinds of hoops to satisfy a relatively few Mexican immigrants and American businesses?

Secondly, I don't see why we must create new laws in order to create some kind of incentive or justification for enforcing the existing immigration laws - which already prohibit illegal immigration! I don't get this part of your argument at all.

And what makes you think that once a guest worker is here, he won't disappear through the cracks so that he won't have to honor the "limits" and return home?

Further to these time limits, what happens when employers tell the U.S. government that their employee needs exceeds the legal time limits imposed by the law? Does the U.S. set up a revolving door policy that might technically satisfy the law's requirements, e.g. by having the guest workers cross over the border, only to make a U-turn to return home to their adopted Uncle Sam? Or does the U.S. government arrange in advance for an endless line of wannabe immigrants - Mexicans that would replace the returnees?

Your argument about the increase of illegal immigrants in spite of beefier border patrols certainly makes my case for militarizing both borders, doesn't it!? Do me a favor: Write or call the Prez and your congress critters and demand that they provide national security, in accordance with the Constitution, by securing our borders with armed troops.

Finally, to compare the American/Mexican situation to Europe's is like comparing watermelons to grapes. The EU has made national sovereignty all but a thing of the past Europe. One of the last nails in the coffin of national sovereignty was the adoption of the Euro currency. If you don't believe this, read up sometime on the stiff resistance to and strong reaction against the Euro by the Brits. Many Brits fully understand the profound implications behind a universally-accepted currency. (Of course, another nail in the coffin is the ICC.)

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Well, you really have two different problems here. Improving the Mexican economy would have benefits all the way around and I really don't see why more hasn't been done. Maybe Fox is the problem, I don't know. But the other problem is that if there is resistance to enforcement of immigration laws by US businesses then we have the government backing off (since those politicians do depend on campaign contributions).

I'm not talking about the way you'd like it to be, I'm talking about how it really is. If we don't need any foreign workers then nobody should get in. Obviously we need to find better ways to track those who are here legally anyway after 9/11. Mexicans should be treated the same as immigrants from any other country. Give them reasonable immigration quotas depending on what they have to offer. And if you need foreign workers to solve short-term labor shortages, let them in legally for short periods like students on visas are treated now, BUT do a better job of keeping track of both groups and deport them when they overstay their limits. It's undermining the whole system to have a double standard for Mexicans vs other immigrants and something needs to be done.

As much as you (and I) dislike it, sometimes you have to take whatever you can get to improve the situation. With something as far out of control as this, you're not going to get there in one step. I'm sure you hate to compromise, but you probably won't get any of it otherwise.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that we should be like Europe generally speaking. They're creating a big mess over there that'll come back to bite them. But, IF they have a system in place for controlling foreign workers that is effective then I think we ought to take a look at it. Hey, I think my politican philosopy is pragmatism. Whatever works.

[PaceAdvantage]

One thing that bugs the hell out of me about these DUI checkpoints, and these 'Seat Belt' checkpoints and these 'Smog' checkpoints is:


THEY'RE UNCONSTITUTIONAL


but nobody seems to care.....



==PA

[boxcar]

Well, I definitely care, PA. This is the Libertarian side to me.

In fact, I believe all pre-employment drug testing is unconstitutional, as well as all the drug testing going on in schools.

But what amazes me (although I stand to be corrected)is that opponnets to this kind of stuff always seem to use "invasion of privacy" as the nexus of their attack. While I agree with that, nonetheless the far more important implication is the presumption of guilt!

In this country, all people are presumed innocent until the state proves them guilty. But to use but one example -- when an employer demands of a prospective employee that he be drug tested before he's hired, clearly the presumption is that that the propecitve employee is guilty until he proves himself not guilty with a negative test result!

And, my friend, just take a wild and crazy guess what the origin of this presumption of guilt is. With what set of laws did it originate? Another hint: It all started decades ago.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I should qualify that these checkpoints are unconstitutional in my opinion. I know that these checkpoints have been challenged in the courts, and that the courts have ruled these police checkpoints as constitutional as long as certain guidelines are followed....

[boxcar]

Can't believe it. No one has even taken a stab at when when the foundational presupposition to our justice system was turned on its head.

Lefty, you don't remember? I revealed this before -- although it was quite a while ago.

Guess I'll just let everyone sleep on it tonight.

Boxcar

[Suff]

I find it quite humorous when GWB jr. and others go on an on about "the Cause" being right and proper in the name of "Freedom" and "Way of Life"... Ok... here is what it really is about since the begining of Time.. this is what it is about.. this is what will always be about


POWER

Thats all.... I'll never change it.. I'll never impact it.. 99.9999999% of people will not either... Power... pure unadulterated power... GWBjr.. and all before him and all after him are concerned with one thing POWER.....I have no particular bone with GWB or Clinton or any of them.. I'm a Libertarian with anarchist leanings...

Power absolutley corrupts and absolute power absolutley corrupts or as Louie 14th stated so brutally honest. "I am the State.. The State is I"

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Well, you really have two different problems here. Improving the Mexican economy would have benefits all the way around and I really don't see why more hasn't been done. Maybe Fox is the problem, I don't know. But the other problem is that if there is resistance to enforcement of immigration laws by US businesses then we have the government backing off (since those politicians do depend on campaign contributions).
>>

Ahh...okay, now we're getting to the heart of the problem, which is really twofold: Corruption in Business and Corruption in Government. And your solution is to create more laws, which in your opinion would negate this corruption by removing the "causes" of it. And these causes, as you see it, are uncooperative businesses that are hindering the INS from enforcing the existing laws on the book, and government officials who are constantly wooing these businesses, never wanting to get on their wrong side.

Permit me to add a third observation: There is nothing inherently wrong with the existing immigration laws, such harboring gaping loopholes, and things of this nature, correct?

Since by your own admission, you have conceded that there is a wee bit of moral problem here, namely "corruption" in the public and private sectors, and since there is nothing inherently wrong with the current immigration laws, I am more opposed than ever in trying to apply a band aid solution to the symptoms of the problem.

Instead of concocting new immigration laws which might still be tough to enforce, and instead of the U.S. government increasing its overhead (at taxpayers' expense, of course) by trying to enforce new laws, I would rather we attack the root cause of this twofold problem, which is Political Contributions.

I stated several weeks, when poking a lot of fun at the stupid and inept campaign finance reforms that were passed, that I thought it was really ironic that not one politician - not even Jesse's Super Hero McCain - even mentioned _outlawing_ all political contributions by any and all NON-VOTING entities. Now tell me that a really meaningful law like that wouldn't act as a doctor's scapel in cutting out a very big cancer in our society?
See now, you wouldn't have businesses and unions always trying to buy favors from government, and you wouldn't have government officials trying to curry favor from the business sector. The symbiotic tie would once and for all be severed between government and business. And the tie that binds has always been money.

>>
I'm not talking about the way you'd like it to be, I'm talking about how it really is
>>

And I just talked to the real cause of the problem and proposed a real, meaningful and long term fix. See, Rick, if you don't address an issue like this and fix it permanently then similar problems will always crop up since the symbiotic relationship hasn't been obliterated. Why do you think we have SO MANY federal laws on the books?

Meanwhile, the INS should enforce the existing laws, and crack down hard on businesses who "aid and abet" illegals.

Finally, I remain staunchly opposed to a guest worker program mainly because there is nothing in it for "We the People" - the American public gets nothing out of a guest worker program. Such a program would only benefit a very select few.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Nothing wrong with anything you've said except, it ain't gonna be that way. That's what happens in Congress all the time. If both sides can't get everything they want, nothing gets done. Politicians are going to kill the campaign contribution goose that laid the golden egg. Right. The reason for needing foreign workers hinges on the presumption that certain low paying jobs couldn't be filled by Americans. You could say that they could be filled with welfare recipients, but I've had some experience with that in the past and it doesn't work too well. You see, if someone doesn't want to work, you wind up with a less-than-useless employee because they have to be supervised so much. We were even offered workers on a trial basis where the state paid there wages for 6 months but had to opt out because the two people we tried to use were hopelessly disruptive to the business. Now I'm not saying that all welfare recipients are that way but the odds are definitely not in your favor. That's why there will never be full employment. The people at the bottom of the barrel are worth less than nothing to a business. It's the real world again. Sorry to ruin your vision of Utopia.

[Rick]

boxcar,

My guess as to the set of laws you referred to would be affirmative action. Seems to me there's a pretty obvious presumption that all employers are racist there.

[boxcar]

Rick

>>
My guess as to the set of laws you referred to would be affirmative action. Seems to me there's a pretty obvious presumption that all employers are racist there.
>>

Ahh...that's what I like about you, Rick: You use your noodle for something other than shoulder blades filler. This is a great answer that is right on the money insofar as it being another prime example of laws that are designed to turn the presumption of innocence on its head. In fact, Affirmative Action presumes all Whites are racist (don't forget colleges and universities use these laws to fill quotas) -- and that the way to counteract the evil Whites' racism is to force Blacks down their throats, regardless of little considerations like background, qualifications, experience, etc.

However, Affirmative Action wasn't the first set of laws on the books that reverses the presumption of innocence. To the best of my knowledge, the 1939 Income Tax Act was the first to have this very dubious honor. The IRS presumes that a taxpayer is guilty until such time he can prove he isn't. This is,yet, another reason (in a very long list of them, I might add) why I want the income tax system abolished.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rick:

>>
Nothing wrong with anything you've said except, it ain't gonna be that way. That's what happens in Congress all the time. If both sides can't get everything they want, nothing gets done.
>>

Well, you know what then, Rick? I'll take that result over a government that makes more and more laws ad nauseum that are needless, assinine, redundant, confusing, expensive to enforce and above all -- are freedom-killing and unconstitutional!

There are three things that need to happen to get this country back on the right track. Yeah, there might be other things, but these three for certain NEED to happen:

1- Fundamental Term Limits Reform
2- Fundamental Political Contributions Reform
3- Fundamental Tax Reform

And I'm also thinking that some major reform work needs to be done on the federal judiciary, as well. I've never been keen on the idea of lifetime appointments.

And you know what? I don't live in Utopia. These things may never happen. But if they don't, we have only ourselves to blame, and furthermore the surefire stiff resistance by government officials will only serve to accentuate the very broad extent of corruption in government -- just how selfish and self-serving our officials really are. In fact, I doubt we'd be able to find more than a dozen or so congress critters who would be in support of any one of the above mentioned reforms.

Methinks I'm actually more pragmatic that you are 'cause my solutions to SO MANY problems would actually be effective! Why fool around with band aid solutions that only mask the symptons?

No, Rick, your solution to the immigration problem is merely an expedient one and would do nothing at all for the underlying causes.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Sufferindowns wrote:

>>
POWER

Thats all....
>>

Nope. You forgot one: MONEY

This little commodity is the means to obtain power.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

The IRS, of course. I myself had to prove my innocence once when my ex-wife decided to be creative on her taxes. The amazing thing about them is that even when their ruled against in court on one case they can go right back out and do the same thing to another taxpayer. They're not required to use previous cases as a precedenct. They also pioneered the idea of siezing assets in advance of a ruling, and idea that law enforcement has picked up on now.

As to getting the other things you mentioned done, we voters could always impose our own term limitations on anyone who doesn't play ball. Of course that would require voters being well informed and acting together. Dream on.

[Lefty]

I.R.S. ain't they wonderful. Wasn't it great the way they went out and audited everyone that gave Bll Clinton a leetle trble?
If both sides don't get what they want nothing gets done. Gee that's only half right. If the Demos don't get everything they want nothing gets done, the Repubs been comprimising with these idiots for yrs; too much so. Congress is best when it's shut down; can't make any silly new laws to screw me like an extra tax on my phone bill to put computers in schools and libraries.

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
The IRS, of course. I myself had to prove my innocence once when my ex-wife decided to be creative on her taxes. The amazing thing about them is that even when their ruled against in court on one case they can go right back out and do the same thing to another taxpayer. They're not required to use previous cases as a precedenct.
>>

Haha. Yup, and you know how they can get away with this, don't you? Tax Courts are merely administrative courts, and these kinds of courts play by a different set of rules altogether.

Just out of sheer curiosity, and to not be nosy about your personal business -- did you have a "tax lawyer" represent you?

>>
They also pioneered the idea of siezing assets in advance of a ruling, and idea that law enforcement has picked up on now.
>>

There are legal maneuvers you can do to beat that, however, you really have to know what you're doing. What the IRS counts on very heavily is the ignorance of the public.

>>
As to getting the other things you mentioned done, we voters could always impose our own term limitations on anyone who doesn't play ball. Of course that would require voters being well informed and acting together. Dream on.
>>

And without the force of law mandating term limits, just what incentives would very many voters have for tossing their favorite political "sons" or "daughters" (er..to be a little PC here) out into the the wild, wooly streets to earn an honest living for change? So soon, you have forgotten:

"Democracy is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses"

And keep this bit of wisdom in mind, also:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" --Winston Churchill

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hey, Rick, this is a riot. If you want to read the entire article, feel free, but it's pretty boring, except for a few parts. Here is the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20020719.shtml

The title of the commentary is "Donahue is the audience there?"

First, Donahue thinks of himself as being the Liberal's Liberal by comparing himself to a couple of guys who are pretty far Left leaining themselves. Here is what Donahue said:

>
This year, Donahue told the Associated Press that liberal media personalities have "never really [been] given ... a chance," and claimed that liberal "Crossfire" co-hosts Paul Begala and James Carville actually are "centrists."
>

Brent Bozelle, the columinst, added:

>
I suspect even Carville and Begala are bemused by that labeling. It serves only to put Donahue so far to the left on the spectrum as to fall off.
>

Now, here's the juicy part -- the part about how the Liberals are SOOO PRESSSED to call anyone a "Liberal". Get a load of this:

>
And yet, even this is not enough to convince some of Donahue's leanings. The Los Angeles Times reports that Alex Jones, who heads Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, is "waiting to see what Donahue has to say before putting him in [the liberal] camp."
>

I can visualize Bozelle agonizing in uncontrollable fits of laughter on the floor by now, and after recovering, he wrote:

>
With Donahue having been an outspoken, nationally famous liberal for more than three decades, that's like saying you'll wait to see the second half of the baseball season before calling Barry Bonds a home-run hitter. Even Harvard lecturers should
understand that one.
>

As an aside for a moment, Donahue's show is basically running in the show spot right now -- just slightly behind Chung, and VERY, VERY far behind O'Reilly. In fact, The Factor generally draws a larger audience than do Chung and Donahue combined.

Having said this, however, I don't mean to imply that Donahue is never worth watching. Last night's edition would have provided tremendous comic relief -- but sadly I didn't catch it. One of his guests was Anne Coulter. Having a sharpie like Coulter in the same room with the likes of a Donahue is analagous to having the Shoe Bomber debate Alan Keyes.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

Donahue, are you kidding me? I thought that guy was gone a long time ago. Is the Mr. Sensitive I haven't got a clue thing in again? Geez, that's pathetic.

Hey, here's a quotation to add to your arsenal:

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw

[boxcar]

Rick wrote:

>>
Donahue, are you kidding me? I thought that guy was gone a long time ago. Is the Mr. Sensitive I haven't got a clue thing in again? Geez, that's pathetic.
>>

Nope. They revived him and brought him back from the dead.

>>
Hey, here's a quotation to add to your arsenal:

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
>>

That's a good one. However, in this day and age, I'd substitute "hate speech" for the politer term "cynicism".

Boxcar

[Suff]

Americans will not take certain "Low Paying" Jobs... Well... I'm a union construction worker gonna make about 125K this year.. Thats "In the envelope".. another 20-25 in health , welfare, pension and annuity... Sometimes when I am in som e of these High rises... I see some of these "welfare types" That are referred to as "disruptive to Production" by Rick... They handle all the Trash for the building at night.. They make about $6.50 an hour... Recently.. I was in the Hospital and was charged $22.00 for TWO Aspirin to my insurance company... So I was thinking.. Maybe,,, Instead of offering these "Welfare types" and "Disruptive types" $6.50 an hour to handle Garbage.. we could get them Jobs as Aspirin Salespeople to the Hospitals.. Obviously at 11 bucks a pop... they'd be rolling in dough and off welfare in no time..... but seriously... you pay a guy with no education, no skills a BUMS WAGE... you get a BUMS WORTH OF WORK...

I was Born and Raised in Cambridge Mass,, In the shadow of Harvard Univ... I've met Telephone poles smarter than some Harvard Graduates... You give a person an opportunity... Not a BUMS Chance,, but a real opportunity and 99% will respond in Kind... I'll give you a saying we use in the construction Biz when the Job is over Budget........ The way to turn a Job from Red to black is by way of green....

[boxcar]

Sufferindowns wrote:

>>
Americans will not take certain "Low Paying" Jobs...
>>

It's easier to collect welfare and live off food stamps, isn't it?


>>
but seriously... you pay a guy with no education, no skills a BUMS WAGE... you get a BUMS WORTH OF WORK...
>>

And just what is a guy with "no education, no skills" worth these days?

and continues with:

>>
You give a person an opportunity... Not a BUMS Chance,, but a real opportunity and 99% will respond in Kind...
>>

Even the kind you mentioned earlier with "no education, no skills"?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Those aspirin cost $11.00 to you to make up for people who have no insurance or cash. Noone in this country is refused healthcare even though the Clintons would have us blve otherwise.

[Lefty]

I may have to break down and get cable or a dish to watch this great new comedy show.

[boxcar]

Lefty, hurry up before MSNBC gets fed up with him and cancels his show.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Sufferindowns
..... but seriously... you pay a guy with no education, no skills a BUMS WAGE... you get a BUMS WORTH OF WORK...

... You give a person an opportunity... Not a BUMS Chance,, but a real opportunity and 99% will respond in Kind...

Where I work, we all desperate to find people that can walk and/or chew gum at the same time to do very SIMPLE jobs, that require little thought and not much else. We cannot find any. We are trying to train un-trainable people and it is not working. These people are basically lazy, stupid and unwilling. We have little old ladies (exaggeration) who work rings around young people. We recently went union - UAW - and now there is no incenitve or anyone to do a good job because everyone gets the same raise regardless. Our business grew, which is good, but made it necessay to hire about 100% more peple - this is bad, because there is a work force out there that is just an embarresment to America's heritage. I queston the logic of payiong someone minimum wages of $6.50 and hour when they are only willing to put out $0.25 worth of work.
The cure for this to let people starve! (figuratively, maybe?) As long as there is a safety net, they will not step up to the plate.
If they get in their time, they try to get fired then live off Uncle Sugar. It should not be that easy and it should be made to be extrememyl painful to get the dole if you are able bodied and lazy. Ever wonder why a new car costs so much? U-A-W, that's why. Take a tour through a GM plant - you will see overpaid people that go home at the end of the day more rested than when they came in in the morning. I have never met a GM employee worth minimum wage, and that not only incluldes engineers, it especially applies to them. People are afraid of a little hard work these days. And unions certainly don't do thing one to contribute to productivity. In theory, they a have a place in the scheme of things, but in practice, they breed laziness.
The American worker is mostly not worth his wages. Sad.

[Suff]

I'm not sure your following along... Giving someone a job that requires no thought? Is that an opportunity? or a Brainless procedure that you have not or cannot automate? The job requires no thought?

Unions have no place? your mis-informed and lack a real knowledge of the history Workplace.. No OSHA.. No EPA without the unions... you want to see real corporate greed... Let Companies Pollute very river . stream and air pocket in thier area.. A car cost so much because of unions... Do you know what percent of Labor is involved in the production of a US manufactured AutoMobile? I do... 8%...... How Many millions have GM stock holders made and the stockholders of GM vendors made on the backs of Working class people? Millions? Try BILLIONS.... G.M. has 100's of plants.. You say takea tour of "ANY" GM plant and you 'll find BLAH BLAH BLAH... nonsense...US GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT has risen year after year... Americans work harder and more hours than 95% of the world.. In Europe the average work week is 25 hours... A 4 day work week is standard.. and you say your bad employees are "Young? employees,,, so All GM employees are Lazy and well rested and all your YOUNG employees are Brain Dead... say something of substance not just State as facts how you "Feel" or "think" things are.... Unions have no place..?? I don't care what you do,, if your not top management you make 15-50% more than would had not UNions changed the american workplace.. Unions lead the way and make the quality of life better for everyone,, union and non-union alike

[Suff]

Aspirin is 11 dollars so we can pay for the non-insured... man o man... remeber in the old days when citizens stoned other citizens.. You just stoned an innocent man... Do you have any Idea how many BILLIONS of dollars the US Govt gives teaching hospitals Like Mass General in Boston? and they need to charge me 11 bucks for an aspirin so lil Jimmy can get sticthes on the House? Always the lil ones,,, the ones that can't speak for themselves.. The poor with no insurance.. ITS THEIR FAULT .. Not the MULTI_MILLION DOLLAR doctors.. The Tastefully appointed hospitals.. The BMW's.. The 2nd homes,, The million dollars homes, in gated communties (to keep out the un-insured)... hey if you make under 300 grand and you hold these views,,, your wrong.. the rich and powerful Love nothing better than to convince you.. Its not the guy ahead of you "KICKING" you back.. its the guy behind you "Dragging" you back... Trust me...Poor people can't change thier own lives.. so they have absolutely no way of altering yours

[boxcar]

Hey Sufferin', if poor people can't change their lives, what makes you think anyone else can?

Boxcar

[Tom]

I never said they didn't have thier place and that good things didn't come fro them -but today it is different. Unions add to costs and do not help productivity. I agree that management is also crooked and will abuse people, but your point was that just by giving a guy a challenge, he would rise to the occasion. My point is, I would rather give the chance to a guy who has already shown some capabilities and who has "paid their dues", which is not the same a paying union dues.
I stand by my GM comments, but to satisfy you, I will limit my comments to Baltimore, Oshawa, Orion, Hamtrmck, and Lansing. And I stand my asssesment that there is no incentive to do a good job becasue the union makes everyone equal. And midless jobs are a facct of life, pal. The point is, these slackards can't handle anything. Why would I ever give a guy a chance that requried him to think when he has already demonstrated that he can't handle the simple tasks? Too many people out there have earned a chance-let's give it to them first.
And I steadfastly maintain that way too many people are not worth minimum wage and never will be because they just plain lazy.

[Lefty]

Suffering, now I know why you;re suffering. Your head's screwed on backwards. How many years do doctors go to school? 12 and they have to keep up with all the latest advances. I don't begrudge a Dr. a dime that he makes.
Another reason for the $11.00 aspirin is Medicare. Think about it.
BTW, i'm still poor myself but there are lots of rich people who used to be poor people. There are more millionaires now than, say, ten yrs ago. where do you think they came from?
Only rich people I begrudge anything are fatcats like Ted Kennedy who never produced a dime on his own, inherited his wealth, and then goes on about corporate america. Who do you think corporate america is? Well, it;s a bunch of american citizens who own stock. People like you and me.

[Rick]

Anyone care to guess who the first SEC chairman was? Read here to find out:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20000913b.asp?prodtype=grn

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Tom
I never said they didn't have thier place and that good things didn't come fro them -but today it is different. Unions add to costs and do not help productivity. I agree that management is also crooked and will abuse people, but your point was that just by giving a guy a challenge, he would rise to the occasion. My point is, I would rather give the chance to a guy who has already shown some capabilities and who has "paid their dues", which is not the same a paying union dues.
I stand by my GM comments, but to satisfy you, I will limit my comments to Baltimore, Oshawa, Orion, Hamtrmck, and Lansing. And I stand my asssesment that there is no incentive to do a good job becasue the union makes everyone equal. And midless jobs are a facct of life, pal. The point is, these slackards can't handle anything. Why would I ever give a guy a chance that requried him to think when he has already demonstrated that he can't handle the simple tasks? Too many people out there have earned a chance-let's give it to them first.
And I steadfastly maintain that way too many people are not worth minimum wage and never will be because they just plain lazy. Put me in the same boat as you Tom....sadly the union has gone the way of our political parties,once they were for the people they represent,now they are more for keeping their slice of power.And it's being bred into the membership,so very few are wanting any change.Its scary to see a guy parrot the union line ,whereas if he was allowed to work harder,longer hours ,he could advance in his company sooner,you try to explain how it might be possible to advance ,and you are seen as non-union,or a scab sympathizer.But since the pay is so good for the amount of work done,many have lost the incentive to do better.
We better watch out as a country,we are so eager to get rid of illegal aliens,but they are the ones doing a majority of the hard labor in my part of the world.If we succeed in closing our borders,who will mow our grass,start food businesses,pour concrete,fix streets, pickup garbage and other "menial" jobs at wages we can afford to pay?

[Rick]

In Phoenix, the supermarkets have hired a lot of, shall we say, mentally challenged people to bag groceries. What's interesting about this is that, even though these people can only follow very simple instructions, they're a lot better at doing the job right than the couldn't-care-less average IQ workers. So, the motivated moron is a better worker than the unmotivated spoiled brat.

As to foreign workers, we'll probably always want to have them to do the 3D jobs: dirty, dangerous, and disgusting. Everyone says they're taking jobs from us, but how many high-paying jobs do you really see them in. People with university degrees work as janitors and maids.

I was a motel manager once and we had to try to hire people to work as maids for about 4 hours a day at minimum wage. Mexicans with green cards (I don't know if they were real or not) were the best workers. Americans who took the jobs were absolutely worthless. Eventually, we got to where we wouldn't hire anyone but Mexicans for those jobs unless we had irrefutable evidence that they were willing to work. The economics just didn't make sense for Americans and 99% of them were just total losers.

[Rick]

Hey, while I'm at it I might as well stir up some more trouble. Although I'm not usually a Ralph Nader fan, I think this editorial has it right on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22352-2002Jul17.html

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Rick
In Phoenix, the supermarkets have hired a lot of, shall we say, mentally challenged people to bag groceries. What's interesting about this is that, even though these people can only follow very simple instructions, they're a lot better at doing the job right than the couldn't-care-less average IQ workers. So, the motivated moron is a better worker than the unmotivated spoiled brat.

As to foreign workers, we'll probably always want to have them to do the 3D jobs: dirty, dangerous, and disgusting. Everyone says they're taking jobs from us, but how many high-paying jobs do you really see them in. People with university degrees work as janitors and maids.

I was a motel manager once and we had to try to hire people to work as maids for about 4 hours a day at minimum wage. Mexicans with green cards (I don't know if they were real or not) were the best workers. Americans who took the jobs were absolutely worthless. Eventually, we got to where we wouldn't hire anyone but Mexicans for those jobs unless we had irrefutable evidence that they were willing to work. The economics just didn't make sense for Americans and 99% of them were just total losers. I agree with you Rick.it amazes me how someone with limited abilities will try to use them to the max,and some one with unlimited potential will piss it all away.Sad really.I think raising the wage will not get better work,somehow we must instill a sense of pride for hard work,fairness and honesty in the younger generation.That comes from someone not so far from the "younger generation".One way is from desperation,as in Illegals risking coming here knowing they can work if they want it,and staying where they are is a dead end.Since this country is so rich with possibility and prosperity, I guess the fact most people know they won't starve here (theres always welfare),thats why our citizens are quickly losing the work ethic.

As for Ralph Nader,I can agree with his assessment of the problem,I just don't know if the goverment is who should provide the answer.I would be more in favor of enforcing the laws we have,instead of dealmaking and light sentences for "white collar" crime.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Rick
Anyone care to guess who the first SEC chairman was? Read here to find out:


Being from Boston... Its a no Brainer.. Joe kennedy.. who later Became Ambassador to Endland.. Father to a MIA Ware hero namesake,,, A Us President.. A Us attorney General... A US senator.. A US Congressman Grandfather to countless Successful Businessmen.. Congressmen and women, Governers. Sate Reps...Thats why we chuckle up here in The North East when they compare that Tobbacco Farmer Jesse Helms to Ted Kennedy... Kennedy's from OAK STOCK... Helms is smooth talking huckster from the Back country... Had to exert all his power to get his son named a US attorney... Ted Kennedy Farts US attorneys

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20000913b.asp?prodtype=grn

[Suff]

Only rich people I begrudge anything are fatcats like Ted Kennedy who never produced a dime on his own, inherited his wealth, and then goes on about corporate america.

Ted Kennedy coud leave the senate tommorrow and make 15 million a year on the speech circuit alone.. Do you know here his Family Came from? DIRT POOR IRISH CATHOLIC REFUGEES... his grandfather owned a Bar and dry goods store in East boston... he Fronted Many many poor people a Bucket of coal in the winter.. A bag of groceries in hard times.. when Boston was littered with "No Irish need apply" signs everywhere.. and back then... No discrimation laws.. No EEOC.. No Welfare.. No food Stamps..Believe me Ted Kennedy knows more about Poverety.. sickness.. Neediness than 80% of America...

Read a Biography of Joe Kennedy.. His Old man.. Plenty of them around.. You'll have a new found respect for the man.. His children and his family.. His Mother Rose Fitgerald,, was a daughter to another Poor Irish immigrant who went on to become Mayor of Boston...They Called him Honey Fitz... He was very Kind to the working class and poor.. to this day you can come to Boston and have a cold beer in a local Tavern Named "Honey Fitz"....Boston is home to the oldest Public Restuarant in America.. Has the Oldest Hand carved Bar in America... around here we "never Forget where hence we came".... We have a saying around here... Be careful how you treat people on the way up.. Cuz you see the same people on the way down....

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lefty
[B]Suffering, now I know why you;re suffering. Your head's screwed on backwards. How many years do doctors go to school? 12 and they have to keep up with all the latest advances. I don't begrudge a Dr. a dime that he makes.
Another reason for the $11.00 aspirin is Medicare. Think about it.


Doctors go to school? wow... Really.. that must be hard.. I know alot of those schools have Crack dealers in them. and lots of guns,, and they have to be at school at 5:00 AM.. and they get bullied about... if they get sick.. no one will treat them cuz they are poor,, if they are late twice they are kicked out (fired)... And I know alot of these Medical students have Parents in Prison.. and Mothers on Welfare and that makes it even tougher to "Go to school"... yup school is tough... I mean who empties the trash barrels at these schools you speak of? The students probably? right?

Try this.. Put a sign outside your house that states...

Help wanted... Go to school for 12 years and then sell aspirins for 11 bucks a POP...Charge 1000% over costs for your services... Must be able to say NO to poor people...

do you think you'll have any applicants?

[Lefty]

Tch, tch, Suffering, it's a badcase. I do think going to school 12+ yrs and spending gobs of money and then working long hours as a resident would be hard. Now a Union man sitting on an assembly line doing a job a monkey could do and making 20 30 bucks an hr is prob your idea of hard.
Once again hospitals charge that 11 bucks because they do not and can't turn away poor patients.
And then there's Medicare. Clue: Anytime the govt. gets involved in anything prices go up.
Now go and stop suffering.

[Tom]

Wasn't Joe K a bootlegger?
Didn'tTed K leave some poor girl to drown while he tended to his alibi?
Didn't Jack K cheat on his wife and then break his word and leave 100's to die on the shores of Cuba?
Great family, those K's. Great values, great ethics. Wish I ws a K
(NOT).

[Lefty]

FDR appointed Joe K as first SEC chairman. Said it takes a crook to catch crooks.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lefty
[B]Tch, tch, Suffering, it's a badcase. I do think going to school 12+ yrs and spending gobs of money

Ok.. so going to school is hard.. and spending lots of money is hard... Just so I am clear.. thats your position?

Vs.. working 50,000 hours in 12 years ......Cleaning Bathrooms or Pouring concrete.. or laying asphalt.


and the name is sufferindowns.. not suffering..you could use a lil schoolin yourself.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Tom
Wasn't Joe K a bootlegger?
Didn'tTed K leave some poor girl to drown while he tended to his alibi?
Didn't Jack K cheat on his wife and then break his word and leave 100's to die on the shores of Cuba?
Great family, those K's. Great values, great ethics. Wish I ws a K
(NOT).


Ever heard the expression.. he's of the opinion of the last person with whom he spoke...

So you heard three things about the kennedys down the Barroom or listning to 10,000 hours of Rush Limbaugh.. and the guy talking sounded smart.. so you figured if you just repeated what he said.. You'd sound smart too.. NOT


Maybe one,, two ... Tops... is anything else you know about the Kennedys.. What you know could be picked up in the National Enquirer...

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves,, had sex with his slaves,, Fathered Illigitmate children with slaves and had slaves hung on his property... Is He a Bad Founding father?

[Lefty]

Suffering, yep, i'm saying it's damn hard being a doctor. Hey, i've cleaned bathrooms, worked on a hot glue press in a veneer fatory, worked on an assembly line and sold Fuller Brush products door to door. And I still have respect for Doctors.
I have no respect for the Kennedys and haven't since 1960 when Joe crooked the election in Chicago. And please do not compare any Kennedy with Jefferson, it's laughable.
BTW I don't read National Inquirer.
How about this: Get rid of Medicare, institute Medical savings plans, and make people without insurance pay their damn bills even if it's on a payment plan. Then medical costs will drop and you'll find it's not the doctors' fault after all.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lefty
[B]Suffering, yep, i'm saying it's damn hard being a doctor.

No... you said it was hard to go to school and spend money... its hard to be a plumber to.. But you said earlier that you had no problem with Doctors making Millions,, Because they went to school... as if it was "Hard" to go to school... going to Medical school is predominatley a Luxury of the rich and/or priviledged... I don't have much empathy for any difficulty they encounter..and I don't belive its an inherent right to Make millions because one was "Fortunate" enough to have the opportunity to not work for 12 years and recieve an education

[Suff]

[QUOTE][i]O
I have no respect for the Kennedys and haven't since 1960 when Joe crooked the election in Chicago.
Like GWB did in Florida?

And please do not compare any Kennedy with Jefferson, it's laughable.

Your lack of understanding about the contributions the Kennedys have made to this country is whats laughable


BTW I don't read National Inquirer.
How about this: Get rid of Medicare, institute Medical savings plans, and make people without insurance pay their damn bills even if it's on a payment plan. Then medical costs will drop and you'll find it's not the doctors' fault after all

How about this... Build a couple less B-1 bombers and give everyone free "preventive Medicine" care therby lowering the cost of "Emergency Care"

Or will the Military establishment Cry foul?
.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Sufferindowns



Ever heard the expression.. he's of the opinion of the last person with whom he spoke...

So you heard three things about the kennedys down the Barroom or listning to 10,000 hours of Rush Limbaugh.. and the guy talking sounded smart.. so you figured if you just repeated what he said.. You'd sound smart too.. NOT


You are reaching, I lived through the K-years, I do know how to read, I do know how to form my own opinions. I was actually for JFK when he ran - I was a Democrate in spirit until the Carter years (even I couldn't swallow that). And I wouldn't get rid of those bombers too quickly - we are at war, in case you hadn't heard - and you should like that because we are at war with a rich SOB from a "royal" family.

In your own words.....
... Well... I'm a union construction worker gonna make about 125K this year.. Thats "In the envelope".. another 20-25 in health , welfare, pension and annuity...

You certainly don't sound like you are hurting, in fact, I think making over $100K would label you as "rich" in many liberal corners, but Boxcar can probably talk on that.
Now, please don't be offended, but let me ask you a serious question....who contributes more to society, you, as a union construction worker, or a fireman, who makes probably half what you make? OR a cop on the street making less than that?
You seem to hate doctors for making a lot of money, but your little union sure takes of you for what you do, doesn't it now?
More power to you, this is a free country, get what you can, but once you get it, don't try to justify yourself by pointing fingers at others. I think your salary and benefits only underline my point that unions led to more costs.

BTW, Jefferson had his faults, but he did bring us tomatoes!

[Rick]

Tom,

This guy builds things that the people he hates pay for, how about that? And most doctors actually make considerably less than he makes. He can't go to school if he works even though most other people have done it that way. The Kennedys are hard working guys unlike those doctors?

I once hired a laid off construction worker to do maintenance at the motel I was running. He was homeless and living in his car, so I thought I'd give him a break. When he got his first paycheck he went out and blew it all at a casino. Then he informed me that since we weren't paying as much as his construction job was, he didn't feel like he really should work that hard. I said well, I hope he does get another higher paying job, but until then this is the only job we have available. I never saw him again. I also had a neighbor once who worked construction for about 6 months each year and took the other 6 months off drawing unemployment. Now I'm not implying that most construction workers are like that but they certainly have their share of deadbeats just like in every other kind of work.

Unions came into being during a time when there were no labor laws and absolutely miserable working conditions. Eventually the pendulum swung the other way and unions demanded more than the workers were worth, costing themselves a lot of jobs in the process. It's always been a problem when either management or labor has too much control.

As to $11.00 aspirins, well they don't have any of those on construction jobs, but it's pretty well accepted that people can steal whatever materials they want, so those houses get pretty expensive when you have to pay for something two or three times. But maybe they could use some aspirin for those guys who drink beer on the job and throw their cans everywhere.

[boxcar]

>>
BTW, Jefferson had his faults, but he did bring us tomatoes!
>>

And moreover slavery was not only acceptable in colonial society and early Americana, but it was legal.

Boxcar

[canuck]

I love it when they de-certify a union--
A bud of mine had to deal with all manner of jackinapes and trolls (union mgmt) when the UAW managed to weasel into a large taxi co in Toronto
These pricks promised these poor slobs the moon--fairer dispatching--med benefits--etc..
For 2 years they collected the dues and produced bupkiss
And as of last week they were thrown out on their collective arses!!!

SufferinDowns--unions are passe,corrupt anachronisms that have no place in the world today.

[Suff]

After this post I'm going back to handicapping horses... But I will spend just a few minutes bringing you up the learning curve of Union Construction is all about...

First off... all this Year I've been woking at the Kendall SQuare Repowering Plant. We're using some very advanced technology over here. We have put in the Largest Natural Gas fired Turbin in America. Its a 45 Ton, 65 million dollar peice of equipment manufactured By G.E...... It does'nt sit outside obviosly.. Thast where I come in.. I bring it in through an existing structural steel frame. Its a complex "pick" as its called in the trades.. Its a big deal too.. I mean the owners are there.. the Insurance underwriter is there..The Project Supertendint is there.. the Photographers are there.. and I have to lift this 65 Million Dollar Monster through openings that I have as little as 6 inches in spots.. Its 100 feet off the ground at its peak height...Its a complex rigging Job.. dealing with center of Gravity.. weight stress shift and so forth.. I use a couple of Monster Cranes. Now I got to put this Baby right down perfectly.. And I do!

The Plants a Co-Gen... Meaning.. we are creating electricity by firing the Turbine,, we then stack thin Iron plates that we'll later magnitize.. Inside each plate we lay thin copper wire.. this allows us to create a magnetic Field.. so as the current is generated we can manage it and ship it out to the tranformers out back.. we're we know have regulated current to sell.

But.. then it gets tricky... Because its a Co_Gen.. we take the exhaust created by burning the LNG and other cooling Fossil fuels we use to cool the Turbine.. and we use a combination of carbon and Ammonia to cool it and change its Molecular structure so we can get it to Condensate. Carbon is the best Bonding Element due to having 4 negative electrons evenely set on its round shape. Thats why its used to Oxyginate Coca-Cola and make strong Tires (black Carbon).. Then we Bring that up to a Boiler about the size of a small Office Building it where we heat it to 6000 degrees and now we have commercial Steam power.. We have a 25 year deal with MIT to buy the steam.. they'll use it in thier labs and to heat all thier buidings.. Kendall square is about 65% MIT.

great project.. great for the environment and goods for the Commercial Customers in the kendall square area.. MIT does have its own little Nuclear reactor so we have a ZERO Fault energy Plan for them in the case of a terrorist attack.

Heres a web site with a lil info on the project.

http://www.smma.com/work_plan.html

Now see.. here is why General Contractors LOVE UNION... this is a small project.. about 18 months. So the General wins the Construction Management contract.. Now they need 150 Experienced Workers who understand most or more than what I just briefly explained to you.. But most will only be need just a year or so.. some just nine months... No problem.. they call the Union Agent and say I need 100 men with at least 5 years Power PLant experience... They use the men and when the Job is done,, we all go our seprate ways... Now where do you think.. a Contractor is going to find 100 experinced workers for a job that is only nine months long.. you Think any really good worker would leave a permanent job to take one that is nine months? Of course not...So instead of having to carry employees when the work is slow or non-existent Therby RAISING COSTS... the contractor gets a HIGH quality.. trained professional... Now do you think when I have that 65 million dollar Turbine 80 feet off the ground the Insurance Company thinks I am worth $37 dollars an hour? You bet your ass they do... If i get it done right I'm worth 137..

And do I think I am making a solid and valuable contribution to society by building a safe and reliable ,environmentally friendly energy source?
A contribution that one would and could argue is as valubale as a Fireman or Cop? I think It is. I'm proud of what I do and I am proud of all My Union Brothers an sisters...

and just for the record... I work in sleet.. snow,, rain. cold,, and I get no sick days. No vaction pay.. No Personal days.. My Job has a much higher Injury and fatality rate than a cops... I simply get an Opportunity.. To give a quality days work for a quailty days pay... and Most Doctors could and or would'nt do what I do.. you know why? Because I am a man.. a tough ole Bastard who knows exactly what a hard days work is.... and Nobody going to school for 12 years got the Balls to sit there and tell me "Its hard" to got to school... Toughen up...

[Suff]

For two years Before I went over to the Kendall square Power plant.. I was Building the Lenny Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge..Same thing.. when the contractor was done with me.. he spit me out like an overchewed piece of Gum... But thats the Business I am.. He needed 250 experienced Bridge and tunnel men.. he built the bridge and when he was done,, we were done,,, Not many Cable stayed Bridges being built in the world to keep 250 men on the payroll till one comes up.. so again.. the union saved costs,, if he had kept us on his payroll waiting for a bridge Job.. he would have built all that cost right in... By the way,,,, we built this bridge "terrorist Proof".. another "small contribution to society" by Union workers... Good stuff



You want to see a real Master piece Go here..

http://bacweb.the-bac.edu/%7Epeter.papesch/Zakim1/pages/ZakimTwilight.htm


Or here...

http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/t050102/t050102.htm





The new Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge is the only one of its
kind ever built. In addition to being the widest cable-stayed bridge
in the world, the bridge will be the first "hybrid" cable-stayed bridge
in the United States, using both steel and concrete in its frame.
The main span consists of a steel box girder and steel floor beams,
while the back spans contain post-tensioned concrete.

The bridges were built within a busy transportation corridor that
already houses the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority's
Commuter Rail and Orange Line. In order to avoid impact to the
Orange Line and its ventilation building, the legs of the bridge's
concrete towers are inverted at a 55-degree angle and straddle the
MBTA tracks as they surface from the Orange Line tunnel in
Charlestown.

[Lefty]

Great, Suffering, noone says you don't contribute so why the hardon for Doctors? When you get sick you gotta be glad they have all that education.
I don't understand why a hard working man wants to defend deadbeats who won't even offer to pay their medical bills and allow you and I to pay it for them through increased insurance costs and increased costs in services i.e. that $11 asperin.
Gotta run, wife and are going to Rio to see Penn and teller. The first time she's gotten me away from this computer and handicapping in a very long time.

[boxcar]

Sufferin' wrote:

>>
By the way,,,, we built this bridge "terrorist Proof".. another "small contribution to society" by Union workers... Good stuff
>>

I bet the engineers who designed this "terrorist proof" bridge came from the same school as the ones who designed the unsinkable Titanic too, eh?

But you should be proud of yourself. For once union workers did something good, which is far more than can be said for the NEA. Go over to the school vouchers thread and read about how union teachers are grossly overpaid and under qualified -- sadly to the detriment of the kids. Meanwhile, teachers in private schools are paid fewer bucks but are eminently more qualified, as evidenced by the generally superior test scores of their pupils.

For once I agree with Canuck on something: The time for unions to quietly slip away into extinction is long overdue. Sadly, though, this isn't likely to happen. Union bosses and politicians are just different branches on the same rotten tree, that is to say their modus operandi for conning their respective constituencies are identical.

Boxcar

[canuck]

Good God Boxcar--you mean an atheist who believes gays are born and not made has something in common with a reactionary like yourself?

Sufferindowns--you sound like the guy who embodies what unions SHOULD be about--or WERE about...

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
Good GOD (emphasis mine)
>>

>>
you mean an atheist who believes gays are born and not made has something in common with a reactionary like yourself?
>>

Not only that but you might actually be coming around and regaining your senses. You see, I also believe fools are made and not born. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This guy's new show just ain't gettin' any respect.

Boxcar

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

[Lefty]

Oh, God, Donahue and Nader on the same card. Let the misinformation flow.

[boxcar]

Geesh...in match race like this, it would be impossible to make any distinction between the legit fav and the false one.

Boxcar