Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I happen to believe Grunt's story, but it is anecdotal not representative based on data.
Gadawag is a different matter for two reasons. (1) He insists that 'purchasing power', which has remained flat for the lower middling and poorer classes is an improper measure of how wealth off are those classes in fact, and (2) he insists GA did well on integration with only a "few" instances, but he won't discuss those instances.
He needs to do better.
In the real world you are supposed to TELL US WHAT YOU BELIEVE, not what you assume others believe. .
Yup. Takes real smarts to run the unions.....And, psychotic-assholes to.....
.....work Wall $treet!!!!!!
"A recent study found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are clinical psychopaths, exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation. (The proportion at large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law."
Compared to CEO salaries, you mean?
The Pay at the Top - The New York Times
Viacom Philippe P. Dauman $84,000,000
Occidental Petroleum Ray R. Irani $76,000,000
Oracle Lawrence J. Ellison $70.1 million.
No comparison
CEO's earn a portion of his salary for building a company that returns wealth to its employees and shareholders, in the millions
What does the high salary of union bosses do
except show their hypocrisy
As a stockholder I can say that I have little sympathy for the ridiculous pay CEO's receive. That is money that could be put back in the company or distributed in dividends.
Union bosses making half a million a year is also too high.
Both union bosses and CEOs provide value to the workers they represent and the companies they lead, but at some point the pay becomes piracy.
Neither stockholders or union workers have a good mechanism for reigning in compensation. Some CEO's receive high pay for mediocre performing companies and some union bosses rake in large dues without providing value to their workers.
No, I was the guy videotaping the union strikes in many midwestern states in the mid 80s through the early 90s. We made many a case for the prosecution of goon mob attacks on good citizens who only wanted to work. Sent many guys like you to jail. Funny thing was watching the denials of you guys when we had your clear faces on tape. Not even man enough to admit your crimes.
I have been self employed since 1982. Worked for law firms out of college and then before that for repo firms and did bounty hunting for a while also in the late 70s.
But it would take "guys" as you state Joe as that is the only way you pussies can win any fight. It takes a mob with you milk weak farts. Not one of you could beat yourself out of a wet paper bag.
So essentially, you admit you are a parasite who lives off the misery of others, then?
Frankly, you cross a picket line, you deserve a beating like you deserve a beating for having sex with a married woman.
I happen to believe Grunt's story, but it is anecdotal not representative based on data.
Gadawag is a different matter for two reasons. (1) He insists that 'purchasing power', which has remained flat for the lower middling and poorer classes is an improper measure of how wealth off are those classes in fact, and (2) he insists GA did well on integration with only a "few" instances, but he won't discuss those instances.
He needs to do better.
In the real world you are supposed to TELL US WHAT YOU BELIEVE, not what you assume others believe. .
Yes, you need to do better. Tell us why purchasing power is not indicative of the poor middling and lower classes stances and why GA only had a "few instances". Those were your assertions.
If you are such a champ on modern economics and race relations, then support them, or shut up,
In the real world you are supposed to TELL US WHAT YOU BELIEVE, not what you assume others believe. .
Yes, you need to do better. Tell us why purchasing power is not indicative of the poor middling and lower classes stances and why GA only had a "few instances". Those were your assertions.
If you are such a champ on modern economics and race relations, then support them, or shut up,
"modern race relations"
I am talking about the early 60s.
And YOU were the one that distorted and slanted what I stated. I NEVER stated race relations or outside agitation. YOU stated that.
I clearly stated INTEGRATION.
Know your subject Jake. And WTF does purchasing power have to do with integration?
I own 3 corporations and in this economy one has to master economics to survive but of course my BBA and MBA help just a little.
[
According to Joe all the law enforcement and district attorneys in this country are parasites.
Uh, Joe my man, hate to tell you but what the union thugs were doing that day WAS AGAINST THE LAW.
And you would not want them prosecuted under the law. Wow, just go ahead and admit it Joe. You union thugs believe the law does not apply to you.
You are out there Joe. Amazing the lame excuses you make up.
Stalin would have been proud of you.
[
According to Joe all the law enforcement and district attorneys in this country are parasites.
Uh, Joe my man, hate to tell you but what the union thugs were doing that day WAS AGAINST THE LAW.
And you would not want them prosecuted under the law. Wow, just go ahead and admit it Joe. You union thugs believe the law does not apply to you.
You are out there Joe. Amazing the lame excuses you make up.
Stalin would have been proud of you.
I see a difference between law and justice.
If you provoke a fight, you deserve what you get.
If you sleep with another man's wife, you deserve an ass-kicking.
If you cross a picket line, you deserve an ass-kicking.
If you go into a church where you've been told repeatedly you aren't welcome, you deserve an ass-kicking.
You weren't out there fighting for the little guy. You were out there doing the dirty work of scumbags who didn't want to pay people a fair wage or provide for a safe work environment.
It kind of makes you reprehensible.
Being a bigoted thug DOES make you reprehensible, no questions asked.
Being a bigoted thug DOES make you reprehensible, no questions asked.
Oh, look, everyone, my stalker is back on his talking point.
Yup, even though he doesn't think Joseph Smith was talking to God, it's just bigoted for me to say he wasn't...
Don't you dare say that, because you arent' respecting their religion, you mean old bigot you.
Sorry, guy, just because you take batshit crazy and dress it up on vestments, doesn't make it less batshit crazy or anything you'd want near the nukes.
Thinking their religion is crazy does not make you a bigot. Discriminating against a whole group of people because of their religion does make you a bigot.
And advocating violence against others for economic reasons makes you a thug.
Thinking their religion is crazy does not make you a bigot. Discriminating against a whole group of people because of their religion does make you a bigot.
And advocating violence against others for economic reasons makes you a thug.
Oh, I proudly admit to being a thug.
Sorry, man, I just don't see how making a discriminionation between crazy people and not crazy people is really bigoted.
I'm discrminating on a valid point. Their crazy, unethical beliefs. If you believe this crazy stuff, I can't trust your reasoning skills or your judgement.
And frankly, if we were talking about Scientologists or Branch Davidians or Raelieans or some other bunch of nutter cultists, you'd be right there with me.
No, I wouldn't broadly discriminate against Scientologists or Branch Dividians or whomever. I certainly wouldn't make lists of these people and refuse to do business with them because of their beliefs any more than I would make a list of people based on their skin color and refuse to business with them because of their skin color. I'd take each individual as an individual rather than pre-judge them.
Toro has beaten JoeB's arguments to the canvas and is now jumping up and down on them.
Thinking their religion is crazy does not make you a bigot. Discriminating against a whole group of people because of their religion does make you a bigot.
And advocating violence against others for economic reasons makes you a thug.
Oh, I proudly admit to being a thug.
Sorry, man, I just don't see how making a discriminionation between crazy people and not crazy people is really bigoted.
I'm discrminating on a valid point. Their crazy, unethical beliefs. If you believe this crazy stuff, I can't trust your reasoning skills or your judgement.
And frankly, if we were talking about Scientologists or Branch Davidians or Raelieans or some other bunch of nutter cultists, you'd be right there with me.
No, I wouldn't broadly discriminate against Scientologists or Branch Dividians or whomever. I certainly wouldn't make lists of these people and refuse to do business with them because of their beliefs any more than I would make a list of people based on their skin color and refuse to business with them because of their skin color. I'd take each individual as an individual rather than pre-judge them.
Well, no, religion is different from race...
And frankly, I find it hard to believe you don't think these more whacky cults aren't whacky.
Religion isn't race. Sorry. Just isn't.
It's a decision to believe utterly stupid things, in many cases. And if you belive utterly stupid things, you simply can't do business with me. Sorry.
I didn't say I didn't think Mormonism or scientology weren't whacky. I said I judge people as individuals, not based on some preconceived bias I may have. People with whom I may vigorously disagree on politics or theology may otherwise be very solid individuals. I know lots of people like that. I've dealt with Mormons and they are no different than any other people. Refusing to deal with people because of their religion is just as bad as refusing to deal with someone because of their race.
