Welcome to PatsFans.com

Savages... Plain And Simple

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DeanPatsFan, Aug 18, 2006.

  1. DeanPatsFan

    DeanPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,855
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    Liberals LOVE scum, they want to protect and coddle them especially if they are GW Bush's enemy.

    When they sent Ted Bundy on his trip to Hell many of these Liberals were outside the prison walls Weeping, Sobbing and Wailing for "poor Teddy" none of these demented bastards had one word to say for his victims just as none of these demented bastards ever want to talk about 9/11.

    Liberalism is truly a serious dangerous Mental Disorder.
    ___________________________________________________
    Protect the little chldren in Thailand that the Pedophiles are sodomizing, forget the f-cking whales, trees and SUV's you loopy a$s holes.
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Well, I must say, right wing whacko's scare me, but Liberalism is truly a mental disorder. I feel bad for normal Dems cuz liberals seriously cloud there message.

    Remember fellas, Liberalism is Socialism, and Socialism breeds Communism.
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,702
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

    Not only cloud the message they hurt their party.

    Check out the current Lieberman issue that's causing huge waves in the Democratic party. He wants to run as an independant...and polls show he is winning.

    So now, the party is thinking of throwing him out because of this...but wait. It's more because of the B.S. liberals are causing than anything else. These freedom loving caring, sympathetic people cannot simply stand each other nevermind the rest of us. When there are no more conservatives to bother they go after moderates and then they decide who among them is most to the center and they attack that person also.
  5. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    From what I heard, lieberman lost in a democratic primary to lamont...Now lieberman instead of letting the democratic nominee go onto to the vote between the democratic nominee and the republican nominee schliesenger...Lieberman has changed his party label from a democrat to an independent, to re-enter the race that he was voted out of as a democratic contender by DEMOCRATS,,,,and instead of the REPUBLICANS supporting the republican candidate, they are trying to fracture the democrats of connetticut and the nation by backing lieberman and calling democrats al qeada type supporters, from our very own VP DICK CHENEY....Why will republicans not support their republican candidate who is morE in line with the GOP theme and issues than LIBERAL LEIBERMAN,,,,CAN YOU EXPLAIN PLEASE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,855
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    Two reasons,
    1 Americans love the underdog, many support him because he was "backstabbed" by the nasty vicious hate filled liberal democrats, the republicans that are backing Leiberman are showing their disgust for the rotten democrats.

    2 Leiberman is a "closet republican" and always has been, plus he stands up for his ancestors homeland, Israel.
    :bricks:
  7. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    What political science class did you attend to learn the above?
    Had you just taken the introduction class, and not even gone on any further, you would be realizing right now, how you are embarrassing yourself.
  8. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey

    Unlike, Jeffords who was elected as a Repulican and than switched to a democrat sympathizing independant. At least Lieberman is making his intentions known before anyone casts a general election vote for him.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2


    Good points. Closet Republican/Democrat = a Moderate or a Centrist in todays politics.
  10. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    #1) No the republicans are more likely backing LIBERAL LEIBERMAN to fracture the democratic party before the voting for the senators gets fully underway, FOR ONE reason LEIBERMAN IS PRO AT ALL COST IRAQ WAR BUSH RUMPSUCKER...

    #2)LEBERMAN IS A LIBERAL WHO BACKS BUSH FULLY ON THE IRAQ WAR..

    Why do you neo-con's not support schliesenger who is a republican and agrees with conservative gop issues that you guys believe your party is about, LESS TAXES, SMALL GOVERMENT, TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY, ELIMINATING OR REDUCING SOCIAL PROGRAMS, PRO LIFE, LAX ON ENVIROMENT TO HELP THE CORPRATE ECONOMY, INCREASING MILITARY SPENDING, ALLOWING THE CONSTITUTION TO BE BENT AND BROKEN, PUSHING FOR BUISNESS AS THE BUISNESS LOBBY WANTS THEM TO, ALLOWING HEAVY INFLUX OF CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR, BREAKING UNIONS, PROMOTING NON UNION CAUSES LIKE WAL-MART...leiberman is not a conservative on these issues, leiberman is only a bush neo-con on the IRAQ WAR AT ALL COST.

    WHY will the republicans not support schliesenger??????????????????????????
  11. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Thats true.

    Why don't the republicans back the republican candidate in CONN.??????????
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Cuz he's got no chance of winning. He's at 4%. The GOP is going to support the diet Dem moderate, who agrees with them on some issues, if it means they can screw the Liberal Dem hopefull Lamont, who will agree with them on nothing.

    It's actually smart politics, and is another example of why I hate the two party system. But hey, the Dems are going to get what they deserve. They (GOP does it too) talk unity and are bigger backstabbers to there own members than the Teamsters. A few years back Lieberman was there choice for VP, now he's fecle matter. HA! I Love modern politics.
  13. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So even though Lamont won the primary fair and square, the Dems should still support Lieberman? Is that what you're trying to say?

    That's the difference between your side and mine. Mine respects the outcome of an election.
  14. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The people of conn. voted joe to the curb for a different democratic senator.

    The only 2 reasons I believe the gop is supporting lieberman is his diehard support of the iraq war, and the gop is trying to fracture the national democratic party for this election season, so the gop retains controll of all three branches of goverment to keep their new america goal on the road.
    Less unions.
    Less social programs.
    Overturn roe vs wade.
    keep the illegals flowing to us buisnesses to lower U.S. bluecollar wages.
    remain in iraq.
    petro dollars are the prefered monetary in the opec regime.
    Keep the u.s military industrial complex flush with federal funding.
    to keep harryboy in a multiorgasmic state of bliss.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2006
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I'm all for less unions. What started as a noble and wonderful cause has become a corrupt, reedy, blackmailing, inefficient, propganda spewing, money hungry group that has single handedly destroyed american manufacturing. Corporations are evil, it's what spawned unions to form, but unions have become everyhting corporations are and more. I was once approached to unionize my company. Lets just say the sales pitch was less than tempting. Stories of how they would picket, blackmail, and sabotage construction projects to get me work didn't jive with me.

    Less social programs would be a dream come true. Our government have never been more inefficient in our history. People need to be more accountable for themselves, and shouldn't look the government as a crutch.

    Roe V Wade will not be overturned. I, personally am pro-life. However, I wouldn't hold up a sign, or blow up a clinic. The issue means very little to me politically. If liberal loosers want to murder children by Shop-Vac'ing them out of a womb then so be it. The only thing that infuriates me about abortion is that liberal will never admit it's murder. The "right to choose" crap is the stupidest rationale imaginable. Liberals are quick to protest for NAMBLA, or hold a fundraiser for Al-Queda rights, but yet demand the ability to shop-vac a kid. Absolutely mind boggling.


    Illegals are invading this country on a scale unpresedented in our time. The border has to be sealed, and with GW in charge you might as well stick Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz on the border cuz you'd probably get better results. I'm all for cheap labor, just not illegal labor. GW gets a giant "F" when it comes to illegals.

    [​IMG]

    Trust me, the GOP wants out of Iraq bad. But they won't leave it in shambles.

    Until we either convert to hydrogen, or drill for more domestic oil, no president will ever escape our "addiction to oil". It's that simple. We use 20 million barrels of oil per day. Yup, 20 million. Take a peek at how far back #2 is. Google it.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2006
  16. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I will address the rest of your post tommorow or a bit later, but GM just posted record gains and is leading in midsize cars small suv's and fullsize trucks, And their UNION.

    I know, Have you looked at it and read about the petro dollar and the relevance to the war...Thoughts opinions?
  17. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    All a union is these days is another corporation. We need a union for the Union.

    If Lieberman wants to change party affiliation thats his right. Let the people of Connecticut (not just the liberals of CT) decide who they want to represent them in the Senate.
  18. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree wit your post about the people of connecticuct.

    Why do you think the RNC will not support the R candidate in conn, like they are supporting liberal lieberman?
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2006
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2


    Are you seriously using GM as a model of Union brilliance? GM is virtually bancrupt. It's at junk status stock wise. What was once the auto making giant of the globe, will soon be over run by a superior company as top dog, Toyota. GM's #1 problem has been it's union contracts. Do you know what they pay, or are paying to retired line workers? The benefits are outrageous. Sad. I'm a business owner, and am for the employee, but hijacking a company to the point of bancruptcy is poor thinking.

    Read this article. It'll shed some numbers as to where GM is headed, and how bad it's finances have been over the last 5 years. GM is endager of going under. It's actually contemplating a potential merger with Nissan. Imagine the once great icon of American manufacturing having to merge with a Jap couontry to stay afloat.

    A Unions cause is noble, but they've been consuumed by greed.


    [
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?

    by George Reisman
    [Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006]



    This is a question that no one seems to be asking. And so I've asked it. And here, in essence, is what I think is the answer. (The answer, of course, applies to Ford and Chrysler, as well as to General Motors. I've singled out General Motors because it's still the largest of the three and its problems are the most pronounced.)

    First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do. And so, without the UAW, GM would have produced more reliable, higher quality cars, had a better reputation for quality, and correspondingly greater sales volume to go with it. Why didn't they do this? Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.

    Second, without the UAW, GM would have been free to produce in the most-efficient, lowest cost way and to introduce improvements in efficiency as rapidly as possible. Sometimes this would have meant simply having one or two workers on the spot do a variety of simple jobs that needed doing, without having to call in half a dozen different workers each belonging to a different union job classification and having to pay that much more to get the job done. At other times, it would have meant just going ahead and introducing an advance, such as the use of robots, without protracted negotiations with the UAW resulting in the need to create phony jobs for workers to do (and to be paid for doing) that were simply not necessary.

    (Unbelievably, at its assembly plant in Oklahoma City, GM is actually obliged by its UAW contract to pay 2,300 workers full salary and benefits for doing absolutely nothing. As The New York Times describes it, "Each day, workers report for duty at the plant and pass their time reading, watching television, playing dominoes or chatting. Since G.M. shut down production there last month, these workers have entered the Jobs Bank, industry's best form of job insurance. It pays idled workers a full salary and benefits even when there is no work for them to do.")

    Third, without the UAW, GM would have an average unit cost per automobile close to that of non-union Toyota. Toyota makes a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle, while GM suffers a loss of about $1,200 per vehicle, a difference of $3,200 per unit. And the far greater part of that difference is the result of nothing but GM's being forced to deal with the UAW. (Over a year ago, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that "the United Auto Workers contract costs GM $2,500 for each car sold.")

    Fourth, without the UAW, the cost of employing a GM factory worker, including wages and fringes, would not be in excess of $72 per hour, which is where it is today, according to The Post-Crescent newspaper of Appleton, Wisconsin.

    Fifth, as a result of UAW coercion and extortion, GM has lost billions upon billions of dollars. For 2005 alone, it reported a loss in excess of $10 billion. Its bonds are now rated as "junk," that is, below, investment grade. Without the UAW, GM would not have lost these billions.

    Sixth, without the UAW, GM would not now be in process of attempting to pay a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets. (It believes that $140,000 is less than what they will steal if they remain.)

    Seventh, without the UAW, GM would not now have healthcare obligations that account for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produces.

    Eighth, without the UAW, GM would not now have pension obligations which, if entered on its balance sheet in accordance with the rule now being proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will leave it with a net worth of minus $16 billion.

    What the UAW has done, on the foundation of coercive, interventionist labor legislation, is bring a once-great company to its knees. It has done this by a process of forcing one obligation after another upon the company, while at the same time, through its work rules, featherbedding practices, hostility to labor-saving advances, and outlandish pay scales, doing practically everything in its power to make it impossible for the company to meet those obligations.

    Ninth, without the UAW tens of thousands of workers — its own members — would not now be faced with the loss of pension and healthcare benefits that it is impossible for GM or any of the other auto companies to provide, and never was possible for them to provide. The UAW, the whole labor-union movement, and the left-"liberal" intellectual establishment, which is their father and mother, are responsible for foisting on the public and on the average working man and woman a fantasy land of imaginary Demons (big business and the rich) and of saintly Good Fairies (politicians, government officials, and union leaders). In this fantasy-land, the Good Fairies supposedly have the power to wring unlimited free benefits from the Demons.

    Tenth, Without the UAW and its fantasy-land mentality, autoworkers would have been motivated to save out of wages actually paid to them, and to provide for their future by means of by and large reasonable investments of those savings — investments with some measure of diversification. Instead, like small children, lured by the prospect of free candy from a stranger, they have been led to a very bad end. They thought they would receive endless free golden eggs from a goose they were doing everything possible to maim and finally kill, and now they're about to learn that the eggs just aren't there.


    What is happening is cruel justice, imposed by a reality that willfully ignorant people thought they could choose to ignore as long as it suited them: the reality that prosperity comes from the making of goods, not the making of work; that it comes from the doing of work, not from the shirking of it; that it comes from machines and methods of production that save labor, not the combating of those machines and methods; that it comes from the earning and reinvestment of profits not from seizure of those profits for the benefit of idlers, who do all they can to prevent the profits from being earned in the first place.

    In sum, without the UAW, General Motors would not be faced with extinction. Instead, it would almost certainly be a vastly larger, far more prosperous company, producing more and better motor vehicles than ever before, at far lower costs of production and prices than it does today, and providing employment to hundreds of thousands more workers than it does today.

    Few things are more obvious than that the role of the UAW in relation to General Motors has been that of a swarm of bloodsucking leeches, a swarm that will not stop until its prey exists no more.

    It is difficult to believe that people who have been neither lobotomized nor castrated would not rise up and demand that these leeches finally be pulled off!

    Perhaps the American people do not rise up because they have never seen General Motors, or any other major American business, rise up and dare to assert the philosophical principle of private property rights and individual freedom and proceed to pull the leeches off in the name of that principle.

    It is easy to say, and also largely true, that General Motors and American business in general have not behaved in this way for several generations because they no longer have any principles. Indeed, they would project contempt at the very thought of acting on any kind of moral or political principle.


    How it works: $70
    One of the ugliest consequences of the loss of economic freedom and respect for property rights is that it makes such spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen — such amorality — a requirement of succeeding in business. Business today is conducted in the face of all pervasive government economic intervention. There is rampant arbitrary and often unintelligible legislation. There are dozens of regulatory agencies that combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the enforcement of more than 75,000 pages of Federal regulations alone. The tax code is arbitrary and frequently unintelligible. Judicial protection of economic freedom has not existed since 1937, when the Supreme Court abandoned it, out of fear of being enlarged by Congress with new members sufficient to give a majority to the New Deal on all issues. (Try to project the effect of a loss of judicial protection of the freedoms of press and speech on the nature of what would be published and spoken.)
    Any business firm today that tried to make a principled stand on such a matter as throwing out a legally recognized labor union would have to do so in the knowledge that its action was a futile gesture that would serve only to cost it dearly. And a corporation that did this would undoubtedly also be embroiled in endless lawsuits by many of its stockholders blaming it for the losses the government imposed on it.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>