Nope. Not Torture.

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3060702
Uneverno,
Oh, I love the topic of this thread. I just have to defend the company that has given me everything I have for the last 22 years of my life.
They didn't give you anything, you earned it...
Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3060708
Actually the last two Democratic Presidents have done the most to hurt unions since I can remember. Bill Clinton signed us up in the WTO, and now Obama has allowed 2 of the 3 car manufacturers to fold. Dems believe more in globalization than any other party outside of the Socialist. I've always found it funny how people can vote for someone who does not represent their employer fairly. I wonder how many people in the oil industry voted for Obama. I wonder how many of those folks have a 2nd career in mind after he dismantled the American Oil Industry with new environment policies.
Is anyone here ready to start paying their carbon tax?
Actually, Obama gave the car companies to the unions huge percentages of them...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3060797
Isn't that what the Republican's wanted? If Chrysler couldn't continue on their own, even after the initial bailout, let them go bankrupt. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? If you can't survive after bankruptcy, close the doors.
I heard on the news last night all these percentages of who owns Chrysler now. No one can seem to figure out whose gonna run the place. Fiat has only a 35% share, while the UAW Pension Fund has 50%, and the Feds are taking the rest and creating some 'board' that consistes of the four major brands that exist within Chrysler (Crysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Fiat?). However, the Feds say the Fiat CEO will run the company. So exactly how will this work? With the UAW owning half, are they going to continue status quo with inflated salaries and benefits and just run the new company further into debt?
They wanted a market based solution, not a government made one, where the Obama administration dictated how the company was going to be divided...
The UAW just made out like bandits, think about it, they own a huge portion of the company without paying for any of it. And imagine what would happen if obama gets his way and socializes medicine... All the stock they own that they were going to use for health benifits, now is just windfall...

 

[uneverno]

As stated, I was making a general point, not villifying Walmart in particular.
That point was that we have become a Corporatocracy. The RNC and DNC are both members of the same corporate party.
The major media are also members in good standing.
If that's not the case, please defend the existence of the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Every penny in your bank account, every dime in your pocket has been borrowed from a private organization which, in return, through their infinite wisdom and benificence, manages our economy through the money supply. At a Profit.
Nobody has "earned" anything. A job simply guarantees you the right to use some of that money. It's never debt free though, because the Gov't (i.e. you and I) borrowed it into existence in the first place.
Not a single State, Country or Empire which has given up control of its money to a private entity has survived. I'd love to see us be the first, but historically and statistically, the odds are 0.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3061046
As stated, I was making a general point, not villifying Walmart in particular.
That point was that we have become a Corporatocracy. The RNC and DNC are both members of the same corporate party.
The major media are also members in good standing.
If that's not the case, please defend the existence of the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Every penny in your bank account, every dime in your pocket has been borrowed from a private organization which, in return, through their infinite wisdom and benificence, manages our economy through the money supply. At a Profit.
Nobody has "earned" anything. A job simply guarantees you the right to use some of that money. It's never debt free though, because the Gov't (i.e. you and I) borrowed it into existence in the first place.
Not a single State, Country or Empire which has given up control of its money to a private entity has survived. I'd love to see us be the first, but historically and statistically, the odds are 0.
You should read a book called "vultures in eagles clothing". Some of the stuff in it is total BS (it's written to promote not paying taxes) but they do hit on some interesting issues and there are some cool historical points discussed.

 

[i<3reefs]

Uneverno,
Yep, I've been saying for years that the RNC and DNC are moving towards a one party system since they are fighting for people in the middle while only representing their fringes. This country needs more parties that actually believe and stand firmly for their party platform. Yes, they are all bought and paid for by cash donars, which are not always corporate types since the largest DNC donor is the Lawyers Association (one could make the point that it likely is an LLC).
I can't defend the Federal Reserve nor would I try. I'm a big fan of Andrew Jackson because he actually dismantled it, however you know where that got him. Lincoln, actually instituted the first currency in this country backing it by gold and silver, and taking it away from the banks. You see where that got him.
You are correct when you say everything is borrowed against our bond rating. However, originally this idea was put in place to control inflation and all other sorts of economic pressures put on currency. The problem is when Government decides it needs to print more money to pay for something they can't afford. This devalues our currency, creates inflation, and yes the Fed makes a profit margin on each coin, and paper bill they print. If I remember right the Fed was making near 40 cents off each Gold dollar it printed, and since most of them were stored as "collector's items" they won't have to count it as active money.
I have a feeling we actually agree on most everything, however you mentioned my employer who I still appreciate.

stdreb27,
The unions can't manage what they already have, they are just a participating partner in their companies future. This is a double edge sword for them. In the past they could blame the company for all the problems and strike on a whim. Now that they own a large share of the company, they will be striking against themselves. This is actually my favorite part of how Obama handled this situation.

 

[oscardeuce]

Back to the topic of torture. I'm still waiting to see who has actually watched the videos of the beheading torture.

 

[uneverno]

But this was taking such interesting twists and turns

By video, I assume you mean Nick Berg?
I watched it. It was sickening.
That does not, however, excuse our behaviour by degree. I.e. we are either a Nation of Laws, or we are not. Let's not pretend to be the former, while making excuses for actually being the latter.
If Treaty can be ignored, so then, can the Constitution. After all, at some point, both are just old pieces of paper.
Martin Niem&#246;ller had a point.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by Bulldog123
http:///forum/post/3060001
taznut,
Were these your views before college?
i will answer this even though i dont see what it has to do with anything (i assume something about how colleges cause people to be liberal)...
simple answer, no... i wasn't really into politics in HS (and i dont know many who are)... i got a job when i turned 14 and have had one since, but i wasn't working to support myself at that time, the money was for gas, car insurance and hanging out with friends more than anything else so i really didnt look at my 5.85/hr and say, "how could someone live off of this"
so i dont think college had anything to do with my current opinion (because i really didnt have one before), i think my opinion has come from the jobs i have worked and seeing how companies dont mind to screw over their employees to get a couple extra dollars....
i think "the little people" should be paid more, period... something that allows them to live instead of scrap by... again, i dont think they need to be able to buy everything they want but a vacation none and then wouldnt hurt...
a friend of mine is reading something called "fast food nation" (i think thats what it is called) and it says that McDonalds could raise everyone's wage $5/hr by increasing the price of a cheese burger by $.02... would you mind paying $.02 more for a cheese burger??? i did some rough math for the store that i work (i'm fairly good at math so rough doesn't mean inaccurate)... we have about 150 employees, many are part time and our payroll is for roughly 100 fulltime employees... everyone in the store could make $5000/yr more if the store raised prices by 1.5%... again, $5000/yr is a lot of money for most of the people working at that store at i dont think 1.5% would hurt a lot of people... so yes, raising wages would cause prices to go up, but no where close to the point that it is counter productive..

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by I<3Reefs
http:///forum/post/3060051
Uneverno,
You are aware that the sources you cited is a Union funded website primarly by the UFCW? The UFCW has been trying to organize Wal-Mart employees forever now, and they fail time and time again. I don't believe anything they say, since it is always slanted to their businesses cause. That is like reading the Daily KOS or Newsmax, and believing it all to be fact.
Sam was the first to make it a campaign, there is a big difference between a campaign and an Ideal. I'm confident the Ideal has been around since we gained independence.
a store in Canada was in the process of unionizing and walmart closed it before it happened (and everyone lost their jobs, i wonder why people are afraid to organize)
my store tried to organize about a year after opening (just heard of this last night), once the upper management found out they called a meeting of the managers and told them if they heard anyone talking about it to let them know and that if any of the lower managers were involved they were gone...
hmmmmmm, i wonder why people are afraid to organize...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3061280
a friend of mine is reading something called "fast food nation"

Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" is an excellent book. I highly recommend Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" as well.
Don't listen to me though. I'm just the nutjob liberal on this channel.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3061046
As stated, I was making a general point, not villifying Walmart in particular.
That point was that we have become a Corporatocracy. The RNC and DNC are both members of the same corporate party.
The major media are also members in good standing.
If that's not the case, please defend the existence of the Federal Reserve CORPORATION.
Every penny in your bank account, every dime in your pocket has been borrowed from a private organization which, in return, through their infinite wisdom and benificence, manages our economy through the money supply. At a Profit.
Nobody has "earned" anything. A job simply guarantees you the right to use some of that money. It's never debt free though, because the Gov't (i.e. you and I) borrowed it into existence in the first place.
Not a single State, Country or Empire which has given up control of its money to a private entity has survived. I'd love to see us be the first, but historically and statistically, the odds are 0.
That is quite an exaggeration of our monetary policy. Federal Reserve Notes aren't all borrowed but at this point a good chunk of it is. It is arbitrarily assigned a value by a organization that we all accept as able to assign value to pieces of paper.
The whole thing is a house of cards. But a very well build house of cards.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3061286
a store in Canada was in the process of unionizing and walmart closed it before it happened (and everyone lost their jobs, i wonder why people are afraid to organize)
my store tried to organize about a year after opening (just heard of this last night), once the upper management found out they called a meeting of the managers and told them if they heard anyone talking about it to let them know and that if any of the lower managers were involved they were gone...
hmmmmmm, i wonder why people are afraid to organize...
Maybe the golden goose just doesn't want to get killed...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3060253
Really now. Funny. I own a grooming salon for dogs....High end...My minimum charge is 50 dollars. I paid my employees 50% commission. This averages out (if I or my wife do the work) to about 25 dollars an hour minimum.....
I like how you assumed I was paying around 10 an hour or less.
i wasnt assuming anything... i was asking...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3060797
Isn't that what the Republican's wanted? If Chrysler couldn't continue on their own, even after the initial bailout, let them go bankrupt. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? If you can't survive after bankruptcy, close the doors.
i love this point... the same people on here are B****ing that this country regulates too much and that we need to let people earn what they earn and FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET...
but OMG, Obama is allowing the auto companies to go bankrupt, why would he do this??? and again, he is socializing the auto industry...
i wonder why the American people dont know what the conservatives stand for...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3061291
Don't listen to me though. I'm just the nutjob liberal on this channel.

remember, im on your side...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3061458
i love this point... the same people on here are B****ing that this country regulates too much and that we need to let people earn what they earn and FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET...
but OMG, Obama is allowing the auto companies to go bankrupt, why would he do this??? and again, he is socializing the auto industry...
i wonder why the American people dont know what the conservatives stand for...
wow, do you really not understand what is happened with GM and Chrysler? Do you really not see the difference between a free market solution between what happened?

 

[stdreb27]

If walmart is such a hell hole to work at? Why is there soo much competition for their jobs? (and don't say because no one has a job) because the competition was just as stiff when unemployment was 4% a during the bush administration...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3061506
If walmart is such a hell hole to work at? Why is there soo much competition for their jobs? (and don't say because no one has a job) because the competition was just as stiff when unemployment was 4% a during the bush administration...
i get the free market difference and i see how what Obama is doing is considered socialistic... what i dont get is how you and a couple other people can gripe about him not doing enough AND about him being a socialist... what should he do... i see 3 options...
1. allow them to fail (bankruptcy and when that doesnt work fail)
2. give them the money and allow them to waste it like they did with all their income
3. give them the money and set certain requirements they have to meet...
i dont like the fact they are failing... i think them failing has a lot more to do with the banking collapse than it does with the way they did business but we have this problem and have to deal with it... i dont think allowing the "free market" to run its course and causing that many people to become unemployed AND losing one of the few manufacturing bases we have to fail is an option... i also dont think we need to throw money into a sink hole (we do enough of that already)...
to answer the above question... when was the unemployment rate under Bush 4%??? and because people dont have jobs... they are probably the people that lost their jobs when the mom and pop store was run out of business... and i have never seen Wal Mart as being a hard place to get hired... almost everyone i know that has gotten hired there would be at the bottom of my "people you would like to hire" list...
did you read the article post on page 4 about "wake up walmart"???? im sure you disagree with it but think about a couple things...
first, a lot of the citations in the beginning are on past court cases that were either settled or the plaintiff won... these are a matter of public record so i dont really think you can dispute that...
second, a lot of the money calculations are also public record... they report what they spend on things like health care and what they earn... divide the former by the latter and you get a %... do the same with advertising and you can compare the percents (like they did)... again, hard to disagree with...
i agree some of the stuff was trivial and was because they were wanting to pick at walmart (like the port security, i see this more the gov't responsibility more than wal marts) but most of the numbers are hard to dispute...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3061506
If walmart is such a hell hole to work at?
and i just dont understand the position you are taking (and a lot of others do as well)... i dont mean to come across as crude but its selfish and shows zero concern for other people... did you ever work one of these "entry level jobs"? if so you would know what it is like trying to live off that wage... your stance of "i bettered myself and so can you, if you dont its your fault and you should screw off" is selfish to say the least... as i have said before, i dont doubt that it is possible to work up the line, and "make something of yourself" but i also know that it is impossible for everyone to do this... can you have all managers without employees??? someone has to be on the bottom... some people dont mind being at the bottom, they either dont mind their job or they dont want to be in a leadership role... should they be punished??? a building wont stand without a foundation...
back to that article... Wal Mart said its average pay for "pee ons" was something like $9.60/hr... working this at fulltime still leaves people in poverty... should this be allowed?? someone works full time and still has to use welfare??? this of it this way, you are paying for this... so again, when shopping at wal mart the next time figure that into the cost of your goods...
stdreb27- would you be willing to pay 1.5% more at Lowes if the employees were going to get $5k more a year??? what about 0.5% more at wal mart for them to get $1/hr more???

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3061400
That is quite an exaggeration of our monetary policy. Federal Reserve Notes aren't all borrowed but at this point a good chunk of it is. It is arbitrarily assigned a value by a organization that we all accept as able to assign value to pieces of paper.
The whole thing is a house of cards. But a very well build house of cards.
No offence, but from your opening 2 sentences, I have to question whether or not you understand how Fractional Reserve banking works. Your subsequent statements do nothing but reinforce my point.
Which notes aren't borrowed?
Why do we accept this "organization" (which it's not, it's a for profit Corporation)?
Defend its Constitutionality.
A house of cards, no matter how well built, is still an illusion.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3061817
and i just dont understand the position you are taking (and a lot of others do as well)... i dont mean to come across as crude but its selfish and shows zero concern for other people... did you ever work one of these "entry level jobs"? if so you would know what it is like trying to live off that wage... your stance of "i bettered myself and so can you, if you dont its your fault and you should screw off" is selfish to say the least... as i have said before, i dont doubt that it is possible to work up the line, and "make something of yourself" but i also know that it is impossible for everyone to do this... can you have all managers without employees??? someone has to be on the bottom... some people dont mind being at the bottom, they either dont mind their job or they dont want to be in a leadership role... should they be punished??? a building wont stand without a foundation...
back to that article... Wal Mart said its average pay for "pee ons" was something like $9.60/hr... working this at fulltime still leaves people in poverty... should this be allowed?? someone works full time and still has to use welfare??? this of it this way, you are paying for this... so again, when shopping at wal mart the next time figure that into the cost of your goods...
stdreb27- would you be willing to pay 1.5% more at Lowes if the employees were going to get $5k more a year??? what about 0.5% more at wal mart for them to get $1/hr more???

Entry level positions at ANY retail company are targeted for people who are:
1) Looking for their first job while in high school.
2) Needing a job while going to college to 'pay the bills'.
3) A retired geriatric who wants to supplement his/her SS or pension money.
Jobs like this should never be considered what I term 'career employment opportunities', unless you do have aspirations of moving into management. If you try paying these position's wages that would put someone over what you term the 'poverty level', what happens to the 3 groups I listed above? Are they religated to McDonald's, Wendy's, and all the fast food restaurants when they want to find work? You think Walmart would want to pay a 16-year old high school kid $12.00/hr to stock Toy Dept. shelves? My daughter is working at Six Flags this summer for a $7/hr. She couldn't be happier. She has a friend working as a lifeguard making $10/hr. But it's a job that gives them 'play money', and it also gives them work experience for when they do try to find a more lucrative job when they get out of college. These are the groups entry level positions are targeted for. I don't think any company intends them to be jobs that someone could make a living off of.