RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:43 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16587
There are no issues. There is only one party supporting thugs, hate, and forced regression, and another that at least will allow its adherents to oppose them. Right now, with the future at stake, that's all there is.

Unions are political. Always have been, always will be.

The personal is political.

Americans deny the importance of politics, which is why the country is so screwed up. When people are apathetic, the crooks take over.

This was a gross oversimplification as recently as a year ago. Now, not so much.


Absolutely, man. The only thing I disagree with is your last comment...IMHO it's now, not at all.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17669
Climate change is science. Science is science. It only has a political bias because of the lies propagated by big money on the right.

And no, scientists are not all over the board. Hey let's not bother trying to fix it since it's all over the board!

Scientists have laid out what attempts need to be done to try and correct it.

Rich old bastards invested in oil and polluting don't give a shit, because they'll be dead before they have to suffer the repercussions. They sold the dumb people lies so they can continue to enrich themselves before they hit the napping boxes.


I did not deny climate change. What I said [ or at least tried to say] is Dem Politicians rarely if ever give any details. As in we need to cut coal usage by X amount. Which is never followed by here is how we are going to do it, here is what it is going to cost, here is how we are going to pay for it.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
It seems that over the past dozen years or so, the right - the Republican Party in particular - has been doing everything it can to split this country. Many issues used to be widely bi-partisan (ie education, the bulk of foreign policy, protection for the middle class, public safety, the environment, against hate groups) Now the right uses these issues to split people. The Republicans claim, for example to oppose unions. Of course that's not true. What they oppose is unions which dont largely support them. They dont seem to have a problem with police and fire unions (public sector unions, yet) but teachers and laborers, somehow that's inappropriate! They claim they dont want the government to 'choose winners and losers' yet they write laws that do exactly that. (the truth is that most laws will have some who benefit and some who lose under them.) Seems that they've just become more selfish, more aggressive and seeking more personal aggrandizement over the years. Sometimes, where it helps them, they want more regulations. Where it doesnt they appose it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, is that the Democratic Party has too often taken the bait.

So many things play a role in what's led to this.

It is said, that this trend ebbs and flows over time. That there have been periods in time when this was the case, perhaps worse. We'll see whether its different this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:32 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16587
It seems that over the past dozen years or so, the right - the Republican Party in particular - has been doing everything it can to split this country. Many issues used to be widely bi-partisan (ie education, the bulk of foreign policy, protection for the middle class, public safety, the environment, against hate groups) Now the right uses these issues to split people. The Republicans claim, for example to oppose unions. Of course that's not true. What they oppose is unions which dont largely support them. They dont seem to have a problem with police and fire unions (public sector unions, yet) but teachers and laborers, somehow that's inappropriate! They claim they dont want the government to 'choose winners and losers' yet they write laws that do exactly that. (the truth is that most laws will have some who benefit and some who lose under them.) Seems that they've just become more selfish, more aggressive and seeking more personal aggrandizement over the years. Sometimes, where it helps them, they want more regulations. Where it doesnt they appose it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, is that the Democratic Party has too often taken the bait.

So many things play a role in what's led to this.

It is said, that this trend ebbs and flows over time. That there have been periods in time when this was the case, perhaps worse. We'll see whether its different this time.


Agreed. My only comment would be that in my experience, this split began in earnest during Vietnam...although early on we hated LBJ and the Democrats as much as anybody. But during the Nixon years...this "silent majority" bullshit really set the whole thing in motion. The election of Reagan in 1980 generated the really explosive split...and it's just gotten worse in the last almost 40 years. I haven't been able to vote for any Republican politician for any office since I once voted for Chuck Percy for the US Senate, but probably only because I felt bad for the family after his daughter was murdered.

Anyway...I see this ideological split going way back to when I was a hippie asshole throwing flaming bags of dogshit at the pigs at the 1968 Democratic convention police riot.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8731

I did not deny climate change .


I bet I can find a number of examples on this board where you've denied or doubted climate change.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12310
Location: Sunny South Florida
Unless they own shares the workers are not owners or partners. They, like me, are paid for their services. If they do own shares then they have every right to make their views known. The people who work in the office of the Professional organizations I belong to do not get a vote on policy or direction unless they are also members. The money used to fund these initiatives does not come from their pockets unless they are members.


https://hbr.org/2016/10/employees-donat ... candidates

And attempts by firms to influence their employees’ political choices are not uncommon. Companies such as Pfizer and Koch Industries, for example, send educational materials to employees about their firms’ preferred political candidates and nudge employees to participate in political meetings, write letters to politicians, donate, and vote in particular ways. Some firms also offer perks for employee political contributions. BP, for example, allows its employees to choose better parking spots if they donate at least 2.5% of their salary to the company PAC.

[snip]

While there is nothing inherently wrong with CEOs informing their employees about political options most beneficial to the firm, CEOs’ influence may be controversial if employees feel coerced into making political choices they would not have made otherwise. CEOs don’t need to completely abandon attempts to inform their employees about political candidates who are instrumental to the firms’ success. However, they should be careful to avoid coercion when communicating with employees about elections.

[snip][end]

Evidence suggests corporations often do coerce employees into supporting who management does, politically.

http://ccbjournal.com/articles/4243/pac ... al-process

Editor: Tell us about soliciting and collecting contributions from employees?

Jankowsky: One of the most effective fundraising tools is a personal phone call or letter from the company's president or CEO. As explained above, using e-mail or the Internet can broaden PAC outreach and ultimately build a broader employee donor base.

Payroll deductions are an excellent tool for collecting contributions and are extensively used by corporations. Where appropriate safeguards are in effect, electronic signatures can be obtained over the Internet or by e-mail to authorize payroll deductions.

[snip][end]

Please explain to me, if a corporation uses a payroll deduction from its employees to support its corporately financed/funded PAC, that is NOT coercing them into supporting the parties/candidates/issues of management.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6502

https://hbr.org/2016/10/employees-donat ... candidates

And attempts by firms to influence their employees’ political choices are not uncommon. Companies such as Pfizer and Koch Industries, for example, send educational materials to employees about their firms’ preferred political candidates and nudge employees to participate in political meetings, write letters to politicians, donate, and vote in particular ways. Some firms also offer perks for employee political contributions. BP, for example, allows its employees to choose better parking spots if they donate at least 2.5% of their salary to the company PAC.

[snip]

While there is nothing inherently wrong with CEOs informing their employees about political options most beneficial to the firm, CEOs’ influence may be controversial if employees feel coerced into making political choices they would not have made otherwise. CEOs don’t need to completely abandon attempts to inform their employees about political candidates who are instrumental to the firms’ success. However, they should be careful to avoid coercion when communicating with employees about elections.

[snip][end]

Evidence suggests corporations often do coerce employees into supporting who management does, politically.

http://ccbjournal.com/articles/4243/pac ... al-process

Editor: Tell us about soliciting and collecting contributions from employees?

Jankowsky: One of the most effective fundraising tools is a personal phone call or letter from the company's president or CEO. As explained above, using e-mail or the Internet can broaden PAC outreach and ultimately build a broader employee donor base.

Payroll deductions are an excellent tool for collecting contributions and are extensively used by corporations. Where appropriate safeguards are in effect, electronic signatures can be obtained over the Internet or by e-mail to authorize payroll deductions.

[snip][end]

Please explain to me, if a corporation uses a payroll deduction from its employees to support its corporately financed/funded PAC, that is NOT coercing them into supporting the parties/candidates/issues of management.


Whether something is coercive depends greatly on how it is communicated and how it is executed. IOW if the employer sends out a company email to all employees endorsing a candidate that has views advantageous to the company and encourages the employees to support the candidate. I don’t see that as coercive. As a matter of fact, I consult with Pfizer and see all their emails and there is nothing coercive in them. As far as deductions, as long as no one outside of HR knows what I chose to support through payroll deduction, I do not find that to be coercive either. I remember years ago how the United Way used to raise money and their tactics were coercive. I am quite familiar with both Fedx and Pfizer and have witnessed nothing that remotely resembles such coercion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12310
Location: Sunny South Florida
So, I don't see labor unions using coercive tactics either.

/discussion?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375
Still waiting for any con to make a coherent argument why climate change doesnt exist or isnt human caused

or why it is OK to force Women to have babies

or why it is OK to handicap unions to help billionaires

or why it is OK to openly prevent POC from voting...

where is that popcorn emoticon

To win my money you have to make a winning argument against ANY issue where the left and right disagree. WAITING

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2077
The two political parties likely could agree on the need for a balanced budget but would
'disagree how they get there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6502
So, I don't see labor unions using coercive tactics either.

/discussion?


I don't have much experience with unions so I too don't have any personal experience with union coercion. But then again, I wasn't claiming otherwise. I can say that I don't think coercion is a good thing whether practiced by employers or by labor unions. I would not support such tactics from either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375
OK, so they agree we are right about unions and collective bargaining and workers' rights. Good to hear.

What issue would you like to try next?

I know, please give your argument why you should be able to BY LAW force a Woman to have a baby!

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12310
Location: Sunny South Florida
I don't have much experience with unions so I too don't have any personal experience with union coercion. But then again, I wasn't claiming otherwise.


So everything you said about the crucial importance of freedom of association (and how that also includes non-association or dissociation) was just a general, metaphysical ramble not, in fact, dealing with any concrete political issues at the moment, involving labor unions or otherwise, as you don't know anything about anything they do or don't do.

Hmmmkay.

BTW -- from my limited experience, which I doubt is as extensive as GoU's or Bernie's, labor unions do have PACs that contribute to candidates, they have meetings where they discuss, debate, and vote on who they will or won't support, and the opinions of all union members are allowed expression, even those that are Republicans. Strikes me as fair and small-d democratic.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375

So everything you said about the crucial importance of freedom of association (and how that also includes non-association or dissociation) was just a general, metaphysical ramble not, in fact, dealing with any concrete political issues at the moment, involving labor unions or otherwise, as you don't know anything about anything they do or don't do.

Hmmmkay.

BTW -- from my limited experience, which I doubt is as extensive as GoU's or Bernie's, labor unions do have PACs that contribute to candidates, they have meetings where they discuss, debate, and vote on who they will or won't support, and the opinions of all union members are allowed expression, even those that are Republicans. Strikes me as fair and small-d democratic.

Stand in AWE that in 2018 you have to argue with someone why having more days off and higher wages is better.

I mean in fucking AWE at the extent of that kind of brainwashing. :rw)

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12310
Location: Sunny South Florida
The two political parties likely could agree on the need for a balanced budget but would
'disagree how they get there.


I would accept a law mandating a balanced budget, as long as there were a number of permitted exceptions, such as during war, recessions, natural disasters, and national crises. Having read Keynes, there are times when the government should have other priorities than balancing its budget. (Yes, deficits and debts are bad if excessive and long term. But. Well, read Keynes.)

However, if that law mandates that the only way to get there is to cut welfare spending (and not the military budget) and not raising taxes on the wealthy, I would oppose it.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375

I would accept a law mandating a balanced budget, as long as there were a number of permitted exceptions, such as during war, recessions, natural disasters, and national crises. Having read Keynes, there are times when the government should have other priorities than balancing its budget. (Yes, deficits and debts are bad if excessive and long term. But. Well, read Keynes.)

However, if that law mandates that the only way to get there is to cut welfare spending (and not the military budget) and not raising taxes on the wealthy, I would oppose it.

Wouldnt need the law if you properly taxed corps and the wealthy and upper middle class.

Does everybody know now that the GOP is coming for our SS and Medicare, for real, and not in 10 years, now, right?

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 4926
OK, so they agree we are right about unions and collective bargaining and workers' rights. Good to hear.

What issue would you like to try next?

I know, please give your argument why you should be able to BY LAW force a Woman to have a baby!


And these RePuBliKlans who do not want "Government Deciding Health Care....Do Not Want The Government In The Doctor's Office" are the Cons who want to pass a law banning Abortion. I guess they have a difference definiton of "Smaller Government".

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Last edited by marindem on Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375

And these RePuBliKlans who do not want "Government Deciding Health Care....Do Not Want The Government In The Doctor's Office" are the Cons who want to pass a law banning Abortion. I guess they have a difference definiton of "Smaller Government".


Exactly.

Myself when I am being hypocritical, like a couple times I have insisted on you not bad mouthing dems and I slip in a shot at a progressive here and there, at least I acknowledge I am doing it and I try and explain why I do it, but cons flip like saturday morning blueberry pancakes on every issue when it fits their disgusting agenda.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 18551

Whether something is coercive depends greatly on how it is communicated and how it is executed. I


Says a white conservative with eugenics laws, one-drop rules, immigration quotas, education quotas, redlining, blockbusting, and HOLC maps in their background.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14375

Says a white conservative with eugenics laws, one-drop rules, immigration quotas, education quotas, redlining, blockbusting, and HOLC maps in their background.

And joe will have to google most of that.

Then deny it.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2077

I would accept a law mandating a balanced budget, as long as there were a number of permitted exceptions, such as during war, recessions, natural disasters, and national crises. Having read Keynes, there are times when the government should have other priorities than balancing its budget. (Yes, deficits and debts are bad if excessive and long term. But. Well, read Keynes.)

However, if that law mandates that the only way to get there is to cut welfare spending (and not the military budget) and not raising taxes on the wealthy, I would oppose it.


Eisenhower disliked high taxes as much as any Republican but recognized the need for a stable economy
that allowed for a strong military and maintained the new deal policies of Roosevelt which the public
wanted. Imagine if Trump had simply copied Eisenhower and worked to maintain he so called
entitlement programs to go strengthing the military and I suppose building his wall by raising
revenues to match the expected costs. Voodoo economics does work for the short term but as
we saw in 1929, 1989 and 2008, it leaves a mess that the next president has to clean up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6502

So everything you said about the crucial importance of freedom of association (and how that also includes non-association or dissociation) was just a general, metaphysical ramble not, in fact, dealing with any concrete political issues at the moment, involving labor unions or otherwise, as you don't know anything about anything they do or don't do.

Hmmmkay.

BTW -- from my limited experience, which I doubt is as extensive as GoU's or Bernie's, labor unions do have PACs that contribute to candidates, they have meetings where they discuss, debate, and vote on who they will or won't support, and the opinions of all union members are allowed expression, even those that are Republicans. Strikes me as fair and small-d democratic.


I think the freedom to associate and/or not associate isn't a metaphysical ramble. if you do then we do disagree. I do not approve of coercive activities of any stripe. I don't think an employer has a right to coerce an employee to support something outside of their employment for fear of losing their job. I have never stated that employees do not have the right to organize. They do. Employees also have the right not to organize. It should be the employees decision to be made free of coercion from either side. Strikes me as fair and small-d democratic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6502
And joe will have to google most of that.

Then deny it.

Since Joe does not hold those positions then Joe has no need to google. True, Joe is white and Joe is conservative but the rest is bullshit that CJ assigns to every white conservative she encounters whether it truly applies or not. So much for her version of the "truth". It isn't anymore real or credible than your version of the "truth". Making judgements about individuals based upon stereotypes. It was bullshit in the 60's and 70's when white people did it and it is bullshit today when practiced by CJ. It was flawed logic back then and it is still flawed logic. She is practicing the very behavior she claims to hate and despise in others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12310
Location: Sunny South Florida
I think the freedom to associate and/or not associate isn't a metaphysical ramble. if you do then we do disagree.


As a philosophical principle, I agree with it. Nobody should be forced to join an organization. Well, we do tell people during periods known as "the draft" they must join the military. So there's that.

I was just asking if there was something about what labor unions are actually doing which strikes you as an actual coercive act. Particularly in regard to political support, which is what we were discussing. You don't appear to have a concrete example. That was all I was asking.

In the closed or union shop, BTW, I understand they force people to contribute dues - but not participation. You do not have to attend union meetings. And, of course, if you don't want to work at a union shop, you can work somewhere else.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6502

As a philosophical principle, I agree with it. Nobody should be forced to join an organization. Well, we do tell people during periods known as "the draft" they must join the military. So there's that.

I was just asking if there was something about what labor unions are actually doing which strikes you as an actual coercive act. Particularly in regard to political support, which is what we were discussing. You don't appear to have a concrete example. That was all I was asking.

In the closed or union shop, BTW, I understand they force people to contribute dues - but not participation. You do not have to attend union meetings. And, of course, if you don't want to work at a union shop, you can work somewhere else.


In order to vote on union issues, I assume you must be a union member. I am sure in their discussions, unions may from time to time consider outside factors but in the end I believe only union members get a vote in the decision. The same is true in many other organizations. If you want a say in corporate behavior, you generally need to be a shareholder or a member.

I have no problem with unions. Never have. I do not believe that employees who choose not to join a union and who were employees prior to the union formation, should be forced to contribute any monies to the union, regardless of what it is called - dues or fees. Any employee in good standing prior to the union should be able to keep his/her job regardless of whether they choose to join the union and or pay fees. Membership should always be voluntary. Holding somebody's job over their head is coercive.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bird, Google [Bot], Ike Bana, Majestic-12 [Bot], tojo70 and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group