(10-28-2015, 08:21 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]In short answer to HotD because I'm lying here in the dark: regarding both my arguments, both on the matter of violence in our race and the relative usefulness of unions. Because I cited one or two example, out of thousands, to make my points more succinctly, do not assume those thousands of other historical examples don't exist. Our entire history right up until present day is one of bloody conquest. We have not suddenly evolved to not favor war and destruction just because the majority of the populace are not conquerors, but rather the conquered. Twas ever thus, wolves and sheep each to their respective roles.
As for whether business has evolved to treat employees fairly without an organized labor party? Considering we just witnessed a brutal ongoing battle involving our own government on whether or not our citizens actually deserve reasonable health care, I believe I'll have to differ with you. We are not altruistic in a democratic free market society; we are greedy. And will remain so unless the necessary counterbalances remain in place. Again, because I picked one example of thousands, don't assume the others aren't there.
I promise, Donovan, I don't make assumptions about what's not there when responding to a poster. I focus on what IS there when I'm responding to or citing a post.
Likewise, it might not be safe to assume that I'm wholly unaware of the fact that other examples exist just because I didn't explicitly say so. If you wanna discuss them and use the same argument as to why they too support your position, let's get it on.
An interesting labor dispute without a union.
Market basket case.
Labor unions are looking for lessons in the recent worker victory at New England supermarket chain Market Basket. By using Internet technology to rapidly coalesce around a single demand, nonunion workers forced a sale of the company to their beloved CEO.
"I've never seen anything like it, that's for sure. And they prevailed, which is even stranger. They took on this and forced these people to sell their shares to this one guy," says Dennis Irvin with United Steelworkers Local 12012. "It's amazing, totally amazing!"
At the annual Labor Day breakfast in Boston, Market Basket was the one thing all Irvin and other union members were talking about. Irvin says Market Basket would rank as one of the great victories in union history here — a long history lined with progressive milestones for child labor, the eight-hour workday and safer workplace standards. But Market Basket is not making union history. Its workers are nonunion. Many are anti-union.
"This company never needed or never will need a union. We're far stronger than that," says Joe Schmidt, a Market Basket operations supervisor. He and other managers led the truckers and warehouse workers who walked off the job and brought the company to a standstill.
"Just think of it: There's no union dues or union fees. And look what has been accomplished," Schmidt says.
(10-28-2015, 08:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]let's get it on.
He's alone in the dark.
(10-29-2015, 05:49 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2015, 08:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]let's get it on.
He's alone in the dark.
Being respectfully chastised in front of everyone by a remote man alone in the dark -- sounds kinda sexy, right?
In reality, Donovan was probably strewn across his beat-up old sofa, in dirty boxers, eating Fritos, and shooting video game aliens with one hand while commenting to me with the other.
I wonder if he's still there.
(10-29-2015, 11:26 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Being respectfully chastised in front of everyone by a remote man alone in the dark -- sounds kinda sexy, right?
I think anything having to do with you & Donovan sounds sexy.
When you two very appealing, smart people throw those big words at each other I get turned on.
Sorry Duchess.
Donovan's pretty busy there alone in the dark; reworking his plan to jedi mind-trick women at Target into dropping their pants for him.
Meanwhile....Hillary Clinton has pushed ahead of Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire.
I think she's off-base in insinuating that Bernie Sanders was sexist during the debate, after Sanders repeatedly commented to all of the other candidates that shouting about gun control wasn't the way to get it done.
This is the Sanders' statement that Clinton and her campaign are using to accuse Sanders of sexism.
"As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence that we are seeing."
This is how Clinton is using it against Sanders in her stump speeches.
"I've been told to stop, and, I quote, 'shouting about gun violence.' Well, first of all, I'm not shouting. It's just, when women talk, some people think we're shouting."
I watched and listened to the full debate; I didn't see or hear any overt or underlying sexism in Sanders' remarks. She's cheaply playing the gender card on this one, in my opinion.
(11-03-2015, 02:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]She's cheaply playing the gender card on this one, in my opinion.
I agree. I wish she would stop making these very dumb mistakes, missteps, whatever one calls them. She's so smart and I don't know where some of this bullshit comes from and why she would think it would be a good idea to present that as sexist. Jeez.
She should tone it down with the 'I am woman, hear me roar crap'. What does that even mean that when women talk some people think we're shouting? That women are a bunch of loud mouth bitches that don't know when to shut their traps? It sounds like she's the one insulting women, not Bernie the old Jew.
The implication is when we "shout" we're bitches while men are considered assertive.
Still it's crap in this case.
Fiorina is apparently complaining that only conservative women get attacked about their looks? Pelosi has been pretty well roasted I think (although I can't recall specific public comments).
(11-03-2015, 03:58 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]The implication is when we "shout" we're bitches while men are considered assertive.
Still it's crap in this case.
Yes, because that's clearly not what he meant. He basically said that talk is cheap and that could have applied to anyone male or female. By responding to it with the gender card that makes her look like the dumb asshole imo.
Her response was the equivalent of this
(11-03-2015, 03:23 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2015, 02:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]She's cheaply playing the gender card on this one, in my opinion.
I agree. I wish she would stop making these very dumb mistakes, missteps, whatever one calls them. She's so smart and I don't know where some of this bullshit comes from and why she would think it would be a good idea to present that as sexist. Jeez.
I think this one is a strategy, not a mistake or a misstep. She wants to appeal to more feminists, I think.
And, she definitely wants to differentiate herself from Sanders and steer undecided liberals her way with her more aggressive stance on gun control.
Of course, the strategy seems transparent to some of us moderates and it's a turn off, but her campaign probably figures she'll gain more votes than she'll lose by it.
That's my guess anyway.
HILLARY ON ISIL TERRORISTS
"I do believe we can crush ISIS’s enclave of terror," Clinton said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Thursday. “We are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win," said Clinton, stressing that the United States needs to take the lead in the effort.
In her address, Clinton also called for new efforts to thwart terrorist organizing in cyberspace and pressed neighboring Arab nations to stop citizens who are directly funding extremists. She said European nations need to "dramatically" improve intelligence sharing and called for a no-fly zone over northern Syria to cut off supply lines and provide a safe haven for refugees (Obama opposes a no-fly zone).
In her address, Clinton delicately drew a distinction with President Obama while stopping short of criticizing his approach in the region. Clinton said the United States could have "done more" to aide indigenous Syrian rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while noting "this is an evolving and fast-moving situation." Obama has come under criticism for previously declaring that ISIL is being “contained," in reference to their lack of territorial gains in Iraq.
According to a new Bloomberg Politics national poll, Americans are evenly divided over sending troops to Iraq and Syria, with 44% for the idea and 45% against it.
(continued)
Republicans, including Ted Cruz of Texas, have criticized both Obama and Clinton for refusing to label ISIL's network as "radical Islamic terrorism." In her speech, Clinton explained why, saying that such language strengthens terrorist recruitment by alienating Muslims as a group.
"Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," said Clinton. A debate over terminology in the presidential primary arena " isn’t just a distraction," she said. "It gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need.” (Obama said today that the push to block Syrian refugees from the U.S. was a huge recruitment opportunity for ISIL.)
Clinton’s approach is more hawkish than that of her closest competitor for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Later today, Bernie Sanders is slated to make a major address on “democratic socialism” that is also expected to outline his foreign policy vision, including how the United States can lead the world in defeating ISIL.
Ref:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../76038990/
Hillary Leads All Republicans in Latest General Election Poll
But, Carson is right on her heels. Were it not for her sizable lead over him with Latino voters, he'd be in the lead overall.
Hillary Clinton leads the Republican presidential field in hypothetical general-election match-ups, with Ben Carson and Marco Rubio running the closest to her, according to a new national MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll.
And with just one exception, the margin of Clinton's lead among Latino voters determines just how competitive each match-up is.
Clinton's biggest lead is against current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump: She's ahead of him by 11 points among all voters, 52 percent to 41 percent, and a whopping 42 points among Latino voters, 69 percent to 27 percent.
The former Democratic secretary of state leads Ted Cruz by seven points nationally, 51 percent to 44 percent, and by 27 points among Latinos, 61 percent to 34 percent.
Clinton holds a four-point advantage over Jeb Bush, 49 percent to 45 percent, and a 26-point lead among Latinos, 61 percent to 35 percent.
She's ahead of Marco Rubio by three points among all voters, 48 percent to 45 percent, and 19 points among Latinos, 57 percent to 38 percent.
And Clinton leads Ben Carson by just one point, 48 percent to 47 percent, and she holds a 26-point edge among Latinos, 61 percent to 35 percent.
I expect to hear a lot of Hillary bashing at the 5
th GOP debate a week from today.
Source:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/cl...st-n474591
She certainly got things done as secretary of state.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
I can think of 6 things right off the top of my head.
Hillary represents more of the current administration, which will suck for our country.
4 (or 8) more years of this and we will be in a world of hurt.
(12-08-2015, 04:19 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]4 (or 8) more years of this and we will be in a world of hurt.
What are you worried about exactly? I'm just curious. I see a lot people concerned Hillary will be the next Prez but I rarely see anyone elaborate on why.
(12-08-2015, 04:27 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2015, 04:19 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]4 (or 8) more years of this and we will be in a world of hurt.
What are you worried about exactly? I'm just curious. I see a lot people concerned Hillary will be the next Prez but I rarely see anyone elaborate on why.
I don't like O's foreign policy and how he's conducted our business and I don't feel like he's got our country's best interests in mind when it comes to safety and security.
I think Hillary will simply move forward with his established policies.
(12-08-2015, 04:44 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like O's foreign policy and how he's conducted our business and I don't feel like he's got our country's best interests in mind when it comes to safety and security.
I think Hillary will simply move forward with his established policies.
Hillary is actually much more aggressive in terms of international and domestic security/safety than Obama, in my opinion.
She supported invading Iraq, whereas Obama did not. She felt strongly that the U.S. should arm Syrian rebels from the get go, whereas Obama did not. To me, she's much more hawkish than Obama. And, domestically, her gun control platform and willingness to use Executive Action if Congress won't budge goes beyond what Obama has been willing to do.
Are you talking about her agreements with Obama in relation to immigration, Libya, and the Iran deal when you refer to safety and security interests?