RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:50 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9480
I combined responses and you call that pulling a shitty. Pretty shitty of you, actually.


You combined the responses? Let us examine that combination. The relevant the posts quoted in line:

Sam Lefthand wrote:
This thread was lost deep in the murky depths of the memory hole.

I find it odd that you chose to swim down there to recover GoUnion's line and hook which was tangled on my posts in the murky depths of that memory hole...

Unless,,, are you planning on using that fishing gear to do some creative fishing of your own?

Interesting bait, early 19 century British law seasoned with some [not] Aristotle.


Clara Listensprechen wrote:
....edited to remove to a later response to a subsequent post...


Sam Lefthand wrote:
I discussed the pitfalls of stereotyping unions with you a few days ago. The stereotype "although unions have become a necessity, they are also their own worst enemy," is not valid even if you do come up with two valid examples. In this case your examples are poor examples.

Both the police and teachers have to work under political bosses, which leave the rank and file working in an insecure and unstable working environment, subject to whims and passing ideological divides. There are a whole array of unions involved who have organized these workers from place to place. No blanket statement can cover that.

I have a family member who is a teacher organized under the Teamsters. She loves her union. She supports it, and it supports her. I expect you could find a counterexample. I could. We could match example for example until night fall, and still not have advanced a stereotyped point into the realm of it being a valid point going either way.

An individual union may be criticized for merit as individual case. But to say "Unionists believe, ... ."!?! That's nonsense.


Clara Listensprechen wrote:


You are out of order to declare by fiat that my personal experiences are invalid, as you are to invalidate personal experiences as stereotypes, which they are not without the unions making them so. They aren't. What you exhibit by attempting to invalidate my or anybody else's personal experiences illustrate vividly how unions have lost the ability to persuade those who aren't members to join a union, and that pomposity has long, deep roots causing union blindness to the fact that their arrogance both exists and puts off growing its membership. When you put off nonunion workers like, say, people working their way through college right out of high school, you remain surprised that these "scabs" will become the voters who support the Right To Work laws. They DO have a right to work without being bullied by arrogant union leadership. Unions have become arrogant bullies, not persuasive organizations, and within this thread lies several cases in point. Further, unions aren't persuasive to those they seek to add to their ranks because like the people here, they can't come up with actual reasons. It's belief-only faith-based arrogant bullying with lack of understanding as to why so many workers use their votes to vote in favor of what the union calls against their best interests.

Reality is that they're voting for the lesser of two evils. In terms of teachers unions, they're unpersuasive to the parents of the kids they teach, and parents are voters, too.


What I see in the post you say is a combination of two posts appears to me to be a response to my post just above it, my second post. It flows from beginning to end, a clear response to my post preceding it. But I see no responce to my first post at all.

You tell me "I combined responses and you call that pulling a shitty." I can see the response to one of my posts occupying the entire post, leaving no space for that other response which you say you combined.


Where is the combination you say is there? Where is your response to that "early 19 century British law" I mentioned in my first post. You had one, I saw it, it is gone.



In my second post I did quote a bit from your since deleted post. My second sentence reads:

The stereotype "although unions have become a necessity, they are also their own worst enemy," is not valid even if you do come up with two valid examples.

If you combined those two posts as you have said you have done, I should be able to find "although unions have become a necessity, they are also their own worst enemy," somewhere in that post. I can't find it.

I'm shocked I can't find any part of it. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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