StrangeSox

Yeah I don't get what's supposed to be "entertaining" about "the government" not knowing about every single public-sector employee in the country instantaneously.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) And there you go in the fallacy. If the CEO states it, isn't the result of a policy in an election, it is the result of HIS OWN GOD LIKE POWERS. It isn't the result of the policy he is fighting against increasing his costs of doing business. It is his own fault somehow. I'm sure the b**** was asking for it for being rich. Did you even read the letter, or is it more lib propaganda that you won't bother yourself with? Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) And there you go in the fallacy. If the CEO states it, isn't the result of a policy in an election, it is the result of HIS OWN GOD LIKE POWERS. It isn't the result of the policy he is fighting against increasing his costs of doing business. It is his own fault somehow. I'm sure the b**** was asking for it for being rich. What are you even talking about? He's saying he will be handing out pink slips if Obummer is re-elected. That is the result of "HIS OWN GOD-LIKE POWERS" to control the payroll of the company he owns and runs and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) Nice spin. Unions don't threaten anything, they just tell the truth! CEO's don't tell the truth, they just issue threats! Great circular logic there. If unions are as powerless as you are trying to make them out to be, there are a whole of stupid people out there paying dues for no good reason. I'm not saying "they just tell the truth!," I'm using the language you'd expect a typical pro-dem union rep to use. They make political statements and back them up with threats of what some certain politician or ballot measure will do to you. This CEO, on the other hand, backs it up with threats of what he will do in response. This is not some esoteric distinction here. It's a pretty basic difference in what sort of power unions and CEO's actually hold and what they can do. While I do think that unions are unfortunately lacking in power, your statement here doesn't make much sense in context unless you assume that the union can and would act in a similar manner and exact political retribution on their members for election results in the same way that these CEO's are threatening to do. There's some pretty fundamental misrepresentations of the relationships between workers and unions and workers and capital/management on top of misrepresentations of what the different groups can actually do.

tl;dr Unions saying "these bad things will happen if you vote for Candidate Z!" is not the same as saying "I will make these bad things happen to you if Candidate Y wins"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) So the union leaders words have no power, they can't influence? Why do we have them then? Who is making that argument? It certainly isn't me! And it certainly bears no resemblance to why David Seigel is a douchebag and the ideology his letter represents is immoral. The issue isn't David Seigel putting up Romney signs at the office or even sending out an email asking for support for Romney, it's that he's doing so through the threat of taking away peoples' livelihoods if they don't agree. Union leaders do not have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If a union was going to strike in response to an electoral outcome or some new US law or policy (has this ever happened anywhere? I'm guessing no, because it would be dumb!), they would have to have a majority of workers vote to strike. That part right there? It completely sinks the comparison because the workers themselves must choose to strike; it's not a condition forced on them unwillingly and without a say by an authoritarian power structure. CEO's do have the power to fire you, cut your wages and benefits or close the plant as political retribution. If David Seigel wants to fire 10% of his workforce tomorrow because he suspects they voted for Obama, he is free to do so.

One side is using their constitutional rights to inform you, the other side is threatening to fire you. There must be some sort of filter in place there where you're not able to actually see the difference between these two things. These two statements are not equivalent: "Democrats will be bad for my business, therefore I will fire you!" "Republicans will be bad for education, therefore budgets will be cut and teachers will lose their job!" But, now that you understand that union reps can't act in the same manner as CEO's and can't unilaterally shut down plants, fire workers or reduce benefits, do you realize how bad that argument was?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) Fire, no. Shutdown, yes. You are the one who always said that without employees, there isn't a company, or is that no longer true anymore? You realize that striking requires a democratic vote by the workers, yes? And that CEO's firing people or slashing wages and benefits does not, right? That the two are not even remotely comparable in any possible way? Teachers' union reps telling members "Vote Democratic because Republicans will slash education!" is political organizing, but there is no threat from the union implied in that message. The NEA won't go and slash education or get teachers fired or start strikes in some petulant cry-baby reaction because they can't. David Seigel, however, can fire his employees if Obama wins or they have an Obama bumper sticker on their car. Do you really not see the difference in power and control here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) I don't, but when the thread turns into class warfare terminology, and propaganda about how rich people should do as their told, it gets to be pretty pointless. so you believe that union reps literally have as much power to fire and shut down companies as CEO's. lulz. you're right, if you believe something that ridiculous on its face, it's pointless to keep discussing it. that's almost as ridiculous as the time you said subsidies to ADM would be more beneficial to the poor than food stamps, but that'll be hard to ever top.

This is the other douchebag CEO mentioned, Richard Lacks "f*** you, I got mine" is a simple but exceedingly accurate summation.

But I take it you're abandoning the silly notion that unions have anywhere near the same amount of power and control that the CEO/owner of a company does? I hope so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) But he holds the stake of all of his employees at the same time. If a plan is coming in that will affect his cost structure, it is 100% relevant to whether that company can stay in business or not. Despite the myth, CEO's are not able to print money. I would tell you to stop making terrible arguments. Yes, he holds the stake of all his employees--he holds enormous power over them and can threaten their livelihood if he does not get his way. The man was, in 2007, a billionaire in the process of building the largest home in the country. He seemed quite capable of amassing large fortunes. These profits came from the work of his employees, employees he apparently does not provide health insurance benefits to. He's going to throw a petulant temper tantrum and fire his employees instead of providing them with health coverage because he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants without a worry, including his 90,000 square foot home. That is disgusting and immoral. edit: it's also made funny by the fact that the bulk of the letter is cribbed from a dumb chain email circa 2008. edit2:

A strike isn't the same thing as actually firing workers and closing a plant. Stop making terrible arguments. No, they don't have "capital" at stake. Instead, they have their livelihood, what they depend on to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. The CEO doesn't have that at stake and can live off of his accumulated wealth instead. edit: and many unions require democratic votes by the workers to authorize strike actions. There is no single way in which your "unions=CEO's" argument makes sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) Union leaders tell their employees that their plants will be shutdown if they vote for Republicans all of the time. Just throwing in some propaganda isn't making it different. Union leaders, however, do not have the power to actually shut down the plant and fire workers. Ignoring the actual difference in power and control doesn't make it go away.

More from our great and glorious Job Creators, praise be unto them: http://gawker.com/5950331/olive-garden-red...ealth-insurance

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) When was the last time you were at a meeting sponsored by a teachers union? I hear this every, single election. There's a bit of a difference in the power that the union holds and what the CEO/owner of a company holds. Teachers unions don't actually have the power to shut down the school and fire you because they don't like some political outcome. edit: more bluntly, unions imploring their workers to vote what is (in their view) the workers' own economic interests is different from a CEO throwing a temper tantrum and telling his employees they'll be fired if Obama is elected. Not that I think this giant baby of a CEO would actually follow through on this; it seems like a version of "I'm moving to Canada!"

CEO Of Westgate Resorts Threatens Workers With Unemployment If Obama Elected Nice implied threat there! Do as your masters command, or you will suffer in poverty.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) First, i'm not aware of an epidemic where gang members are robbing lawful gun owners. I guess show me that's a problem and I'll buy this "justification" to raise taxes. Second, aren't you afraid of getting shot? Why don't YOU stay inside and not go into public if you're so concerned about the 1 in a 500 zillion chance of being shot by someone using a gun to protect themselves? I'm all for putting reasonable restrictions on guns. But I don't think that should be done through taxes which we all know is a bunch of bulls***. Emanuel should come out today and say he's implementing a 1% tax on car owners because of the car jacking problem we have in the city. That makes about as much sense as this gun/ammo tax. Aren't most of the guns in the hands of gangs stolen weapons? Also fwiw this proposal is coming from Preckwinkle, not Rahm.

I thought this was pretty funny: "When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”

I'm benching Gates in favor of Celek but I'm 0-5 so I wouldn't necessarily follow my advice.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:25 AM) What's with Sandusky saying he's innocent? He should be worried about making amends so God forgives him rather than denying these acts. What a f***. How bout his victims. Way to apologize to them, you f***ing prick. He's (most likely) a delusional narcissist. He isn't capable of feeling empathy or considering others.

I actually had a shot in my winless league until Brees put up 39 points against me.

And get elected to office, don't forget that part. that doesn't mean he represents "today's Republican party," that the whole party is that racist, but it's just the extreme end of a party that believes, on average, that white people face just as much if not more problems from racism and discrimination.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) No more #2 pencils! fun fact: Lead poisoning Although lead has not been used for writing since antiquity, lead poisoning from pencils was not uncommon. Until the middle of the 20th century the paint used for the outer coating could contain high concentrations of lead and this could be ingested when the pencil was sucked or chewed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#Lead_poisoning

More stupid things, this time from Arkansas Representative Jon Hubbard: Slavery and over a dozen decades of institutionalized racism weren't so bad! Also, desegregation makes everyone else dumber thanks to blacks! wonkette