Public Employee Unions Must Be Crushed !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Shut down dissent by personal attacks rather than trying to win the argument.

---

It's a bit difficult to tell what your "argument" is.

As I see it, you posit that privately owned, user subscribed (formerly) "public" services are superior to those supplied by the government.
You have also previously been a consistent advocate for removing regulation from business.

So, once you remove government from the equation we have FireFighters, Inc.- a private, for profit entity with no competition- as the sole source of protection.

And their incentive to provide comprehensive service at low cost is what, exactly?

BTW, 9...
Your new persona as the poor, abused , lone voice of conservatism is adorable.
It's a shame that the right wing agenda is so poorly covered in the media and your bravery, standing as the lone beacon of sanity in this rabidly liberal world , is edifying.

Well actually, it would be if you weren't wrong about pretty much everything.

So, Scottsdale is a rural area? Did you even look at the map? Have you ever been there?

---

Here it is again for you, in case you missed it.

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4G...ed=0CCoQ8gEwAA
...

OK, I know where Scottsdale is.
Still not sure what the point is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

OK, I know where Scottsdale is.
Still not sure what the point is.

---

Remember, you brought it up originally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

9, the fact is, you don't have enough information to either "hate" or approve of unions.
90% of your posts are unfiltered Fox newspap and the remaining 10% are clueless in the extreme.

You wanna outsource government jobs, eh?
Say, turn the fire department over to the same folks who perform Comcast home service?
Good luck with that.

---

To which I replied that there is a private company which provides fire department service, to which the liberal anarchist replied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Yes, I want to outsource and privatize as many government jobs as possible. Hopefully it will help destroy what is left of the unions in this country. And as Rural Metro has shown, a private company can provide excellent fire protection and ambulance service at a reasonable cost. Consumers then have the right and freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for that service and protection or just roll the dice and take their chances that they won't need to ever use it, and then deal with the consequences themselves.

---

The point that you missed here is that it can really only work in a sparsely populated rural environment. This wouldn't succeed in urban areas, especially in situations where many residential units are in very close proximity of each other. Whether it be a separate cost or built into the rent, the "private" costs would be extremely high. There would also be no margin of "opting" out as you propose. If you are at the point where you'd have the government managing pretty much nothing... it would seem that you are with me in idealizing a complete anarchist society. You can't just leave your foot halfway through the door.

---

And then I pointed out that, Scottsdale is not rural.

So, yes, government jobs can be done by the private sector, and it doesn't matter whether these are rural areas or urban areas like Scottsdale.

My point has been made and proven.

9's, are there any jobs you deem worthy of middle-class pay, benefits, and retirement? Some of us have to pay back the thousands of dollars (not to mention hard work) involved in earning our degrees... It would be nice to reep some kind of reward from your capitalist system. :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

So, yes, government jobs can be done by the private sector, and it doesn't matter whether these are rural areas or urban areas like Scottsdale.

My point has been made and proven.

---

Reading back I can't see anyone say that government jobs can't be done by the private sector. It does appear that the theory raised is that the private sector may not be as cheap or efficient and they are more likely to cut corners to keep profit margins up.

I have to ask some of our older British members if their gas/electricity/water bills went down up or remained pretty much the same when they were sold off to the private sector.

My personal experience when dealing with government to be honest has been very positive. Whenever I've had the occasion to converse with officialdom I've found the representative to be polite and responsive and my issues have been dealt with in good time.

With the private sector it's been a total crap shoot once they have my money.

Private firms are the ruination of the British system. Trains dont run on time and cost a fortune despite being subsidised by the govenrment. The power companies are a laugh. Prices dont go up by a few percent they go up by 20 to 30%. The next one is muted at 25%.

My own experience of British Gas(private). could not produce a bill online for six months owing to 'computer problems'. Because I was online they could not give me a detailed bill on paper either. Their next hike is to be 25%.

My own experience of Scottish Power(private). I told them that their meter reader was only reading one instead of two meters(One for night time). They informed me that they knew what they were doing. One year later I received a masive bill for the unread meter. Do you want more?

Bus company(private). Takes off all the 'non profitable' routes, leaving people stranded in the rural community. If someone else starts a bus on these routes the company ensures that it has a bus in front of the new bus and reduces its fare on that route. When the new company 'gives up' they take their buses off again. The bus owner is one of the richest men in Scotland.


p.s. Britain is up to its ears in debt because of private firms. I understand most western countries are in the same boat. It was not nationalised companies that caused that predicament.

I have said this before, all utility services should be nationally owned. I have lived through private(pre 1948), public (1948 to 1980's), private since then. The post office is next to go private.

Summing up. Unless you have lived through both, you are only guessing which is best.

9's fondness for privatization might be sorely tested by results from his home state of Arizona.

In a nutshell, since outsourcing prisons the state has paid more per prisoner than when under government aegis.
Allowing the private contractors to cherry pick the prisoners- i.e., no longterm/high cost medical care prisoners- the private corps can show an easy profit and foist the "problem" prisoners off on the state.
In essence, they are adapting Castro's Mariel boatlift strategy as a profit enhancer.

Very clever of the private sector to try it, very stupid of Arizonans to buy it.

I don't particularly like the thought of prison being an enjoyable place, but I do suspect private companies, interested in turning as much profit as possible, would provide lower quality of food, medical, and educational services to the prisoners. Not all of these inmates are rapist pedophiles, and should receive a minimal level of care while serving their sentences.

I believe public utilities, education (k-12), prisons, postal, and others should remain in the hands of the government. Not everything needs to be reduced to the lowest possible cost. There is always a price to pay when you do so. Too many business owners are total scumbags. I don't want them operating everything. Government has its place- serving the public good.

The Post Office is already "private".

My biggest problem with private prisons is that they need an ever increasing population to remain profitable.
Where the "people" (in theory represented by the government) are better served by reducing criminality, private businesses in the prison industry
need more people to house...a clear conflict of interest.

Unsurprisingly, Arizona's insane immigration laws were heavily backed by private prison corporations who see a very profitable outcome
from the "reform".
If that doesn't pan out, expect littering to become a capital offense.

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

---

What has US debt got to do with operating costs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

You really think the government will do a better job of being financially responsible than the private sector?

Here's how well the government does with our money...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

---

I'm trying to imagine what our infrastructure, and social services would look like if we refused to have this debt. Are you suggesting that roads, and public services should be abandoned if there is no funding for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Oh, this is rich!

You guys are worried about the private sector being more expensive than public employees?

---

Apparently 9 missed my previous link, so I'll highlight it again-RIGHT GODDAMN HERE!.
There's no need to "worry" about comparisons between public and private sector efficiency because results from his own home state prove that "savings"
through private outsourcing are as illusory as the rest of conservative dogma.

The conflation of "good business" and "good government" is the new conservative Holy Grail.
Convincing America that corporations will somehow elevate their concern for public welfare above the cutthroat pursuit of profit is the full time job of the Koch brothers/Fox news and leads to such travesties as the Trump "campaign" (still awaiting those "amazing" results from your private investigators in Hawaii, Donald!).

Spend a few hours with Comcast customer support and tell me you think they could do a better job running the DMV.

Yay! My side won!...




"Wisconsin’s controversial new law limiting the collective bargaining rights of public employees had been blocked for months in the wake of a lawsuit that claims Republican legislators passed the bill without giving adequate public notice.

But the law has been revived from its deathbed, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday ruled that a lower-court judge who had enjoined the law improperly interfered with the legislature, WSJ reports.

The union law will now take effect; it not only limits employees’ right to bargain over their wages, but it also requires public employees to contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and pay at least 12.6% of their health-care premiums, according to WSJ.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the union measure was needed to help tackle the state’s budget deficit and give local governments needed flexibility.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority. The narrow ruling was not surprising out of a court that long has been beset by a sharp divide between its conservative and liberal blocs.

Tuesday’s opinion said Wisconsin circuit-court judge Maryann Sumi exceeded her authority when she issued a permanent injunction in May barring the law from taking effect. The justices wrote, “One of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.”

The opinion included a fierce dissent, AP reports. Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who is considered the leader of the court’s liberal wing, wrote that the majority “set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation.”

Abrahamson also said that a concurring opinion by newly reelected Justice David Prosser was “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.”




Take that Clocky and Lucifer!

I am so happy for you.

Your joy however is probably destined to be short lived, as legal challenges couldn't be filed till the law actually took effect.
I expect the law will be overturned just about the same time as the recall elections get going...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Yay! My side won!...

---

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Yay! My side won!...

---

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

---

Ah, but they did fight....
















...and they lost.











Moving on, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

In reality, everyone except a virtually 0 % minority win in this. As far as that short winner's list, you're not on it.

I'm more cynical than clocker, and if this doesn't get repealed and the governor isn't recalled, I would only consider it a failure of mass intelligence and Wisconsin deserves the regression and demotion of the quality of life they didn't fight for.

---

Ah, but they did fight....
...and they lost.
Moving on, then.

---

They protested, but that mostly achieves nothing. As the voters really only have power once every year or 2 or 4 or 6. They get to decide what's important at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Ah, but they did fight....
...and they lost.
Moving on, then.

---

They protested, but that mostly achieves nothing. As the voters really only have power once every year or 2 or 4 or 6. They get to decide what's important at that time.

---

Oh, you're right, of course, except that the current lull in activity was intended to be final, back when laws had meaning.

The lawyers never want any legal action to end, really.

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

---

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

As to your correct supposition about "The Fight", the court having ruled is meant to allow operational status - it likely will not, however, owing to the machination of the lawyers, who always see light at the end of every hole-in-the-ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That's an entirely separate system

I want to recall what I said moments ago, as I think I might be overplaying voter significance at elections. Campaign managers decide who wins at each election.

---

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

---

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

---

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

---

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

---

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

---

How about leaving speculation aside as well. Though I'm reluctant to admit it while traveling, I suffer from American citizenship by birthright. I have, with the exception of 12 months (accumulated), resided in America my entire life. What made you think I'm not from here? I have been making arrangements to leave (permanently), but for now my current plan has me stuck here for a little while longer. Forgetting that, being an American doesn't automatically grant one wisdom about what should be done in their country, it usually just implies they have more of a vested interest in the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Let's leave ideology aside for a moment so you can tell us how eight years of Al Gore would have gone?

While you are doing that, this American will try to forget for a moment that a non-American is (once again) presuming to pronounce definitively on matters American.

---

How about leaving speculation aside as well. Though I'm reluctant to admit it while traveling, I suffer from American citizenship by birthright. I have, with the exception of 12 months (accumulated), resided in America my entire life. What made you think I'm not from here? I have been making arrangements to leave (permanently), but for now my current plan has me stuck here for a little while longer. Forgetting that, being an American doesn't automatically grant one wisdom about what should be done in their country, it usually just implies they have more of a vested interest in the results.

---

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

---

It can be attributed to spiteful cynicism. I don't really like Gore that much either. I think in 2000 if I had my pick at all the major candidates (if forced) I would have gone for McCain. I liked him much more back then, I did not like him in 08 whatsoever. In 2004 the only candidate that had my interest was Kucinich. He had no chance at victory, and after a rather dismal state election process 2 years earlier, I didn't even bother voting in 2004. It feels like much of a fool's errand as I've grown quite apathetic to the entire process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Winning strategies are always better than losing ones, but underplaying the voter's role is a huge mistake; just ask me.

Ask the libs who watched Bush stumble through two terms.

---

That is my point, you think the voters were really voting in their best interest putting Bush in office both terms? Propaganda wins every election, the voters are just pawns in that.

---

I am finding myself more, and more, disillusioned with our system (and everyone else's, as well), but think your statement here is a bit off, macky. Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

---

But I find that analogy highly disproportionate. When's the last time you saw a bread commercial? Now a McD/BK/Wendy analogy would fit right in. In fact, I put political ads on the same level as fast food ads. I often see them and think, I don't like you're shitty food or I don't buy your shitty message. That's just me, but it apparently has major effects on the population en masse.

I would agree that it doesn't really change. I really like Obama as a man, he's intelligent with clear perspective and sound logic. As a politician though, I don't rank him that much higher than your standard politician (my definition of standard here isn't an average, as there's many that are way below standard IMO). There was a speech he gave after the Reverend Wright story where he addressed race relations that at the time surprised me that someone in public spoke that candidly about it. For sake of being thorough I dug up a youtube link for it, so that anyone can watch it if they wish. It contained both political pandering and candid honesty, which can clearly be discerned at stark contrast. It was what he revealed about himself as a man that I was given the chance to find a great deal of respect for him. I just didn't, and still don't share the same "hope" that he spoke of in the pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9al4IQOhk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then I must offer you my sincerest apology for taking the liberty of mis-attributing your animus.

Please tell us about Mr. Gore, my American friend.

---

It can be attributed to spiteful cynicism. I don't really like Gore that much either. I think in 2000 if I had my pick at all the major candidates (if forced) I would have gone for McCain. I liked him much more back then, I did not like him in 08 whatsoever. In 2004 the only candidate that had my interest was Kucinich. He had no chance at victory, and after a rather dismal state election process 2 years earlier, I didn't even bother voting in 2004. It feels like much of a fool's errand as I've grown quite apathetic to the entire process.

---

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

---

No no no, the spiteful cynicism is mine, not yours. It was in response to the wording you used about how you misinterpreted me... nevermind.

If voting were an online activity, that'd be different. Instead we're talking about driving over, finding parking, getting voter identification ready, waiting, waiting, waiting, vote. That's not including the prerequisite of making sure you have your voting information up to date, finding out you've lost your card, etc. All that for what? To vote between one clown or another, when advertisement has already determined the outcome? To vote on a slew of issues that pretty much get a 60-75 % favor of passing regardless of what they are. The symbolism of pointlessness makes the entire experience very agitating. Purging my opinions in digital form on some server accessible to the world, that's a lot more personally satisfying.

To answer your last questions, I am leaving to escape. To escape from:
-a majority of religious nuts
-saturated superficiality and stupidity
-commercialized politics
-unpredictable taxation (fines, fees, permit costs, etc.)
-living under and hearing about the tyranny of home owner's associations
-shitty food choices in the middle of the night
-monolinguists
-muffin tops
-american football
-etc. etc. etc.

I'm just ready to start being bothered by another culture's problems. I'm fed up with this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You couldn't be more wrong about my "spiteful cynicism", but never mind that.

I find it ironic that your self-admitted apathy only extends to the voting booth, which is the only way for your opinion to count.

I trust any lurkers here to publish their opinion of yours (or mine, for the matter), if you are the type to care about the score, but I must tell you how impressed I am that you cared enough to favor us with any of your posts, the least of which took more time than it would to pull the voting lever.

Apropos of nothing at all, can I ask if you are leaving to study colonialism for a few years before you come back here for a presidential run?

---

No no no, the spiteful cynicism is mine, not yours. It was in response to the wording you used about how you misinterpreted me... nevermind.

If voting were an online activity, that'd be different. Instead we're talking about driving over, finding parking, getting voter identification ready, waiting, waiting, waiting, vote. That's not including the prerequisite of making sure you have your voting information up to date, finding out you've lost your card, etc. All that for what? To vote between one clown or another, when advertisement has already determined the outcome? To vote on a slew of issues that pretty much get a 60-75 % favor of passing regardless of what they are. The symbolism of pointlessness makes the entire experience very agitating. Purging my opinions in digital form on some server accessible to the world, that's a lot more personally satisfying.

To answer your last questions, I am leaving to escape. To escape from:
-a majority of religious nuts
-saturated superficiality and stupidity
-commercialized politics
-unpredictable taxation (fines, fees, permit costs, etc.)
-living under and hearing about the tyranny of home owner's associations
-shitty food choices in the middle of the night
-monolinguists
-muffin tops
-american football
-etc. etc. etc.

I'm just ready to start being bothered by another culture's problems. I'm fed up with this one.

---

Oh, ffs.

You could have just said so. :)

I trust you will keep us apprised of events going forward - there is a tremendous opportunity here for enlightened and entertaining postage, wouldn't you say?

This place could use a good salvaging.

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

---

That's excellent, then.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Saying that propaganda is the winner of elections is akin to saying that advertising is the only reason people buy bread. There is still a demand side to politics. The masses still have to want/need to hear the messages being fed to them. However, I don't believe modern politics are driven by the masses.

What bothers me the most is that I don't see it changing- regardless of who runs/"wins" office.

---

But I find that analogy highly disproportionate. When's the last time you saw a bread commercial? Now a McD/BK/Wendy analogy would fit right in. In fact, I put political ads on the same level as fast food ads. I often see them and think, I don't like you're shitty food or I don't buy your shitty message. That's just me, but it apparently has major effects on the population en masse.

---

I believe I will accept your "fast food" analogy over mine of "bread". I am still at a point of seeking heartiness (as a good, real bread should bring), but I do realize that any messages being sold are the Wonder Bread variety- and not anything more than something to appease the hunger.

I remember arguing once with the majority of a Business 101 class that advertisements were successful at swaying "people's" opinions on which goods they purchased. No one in the room wanted to admit/believe that they were convinced to buy anything based on image, celebrity, etc. Everyone believed they were "too smart" to fall for such obvious tricks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

This is probably the longest I've been active on any particular forum, with the exception of networkedmediatank. It still brings me back every day, I don't know what it is exactly but I love this board.

Edit: So unfortunately, yes, I'll probably be spittin around for quite awhile longer, give or take a few sporadic breaks. Comma, comma, comma.

---

I agree. This has been a fun forum with lots of people to argue with and I have enjoyed that. But it has been a huge time waster for me.

After Father's Day, I am leaving for Oregon, and my life is going to become extremely busy with getting my Grandparents' guest house ready for me to live in-- it hasn't been used in years! And then when college classes start I will need all the time I can get to study and pass them. Accounting is not the most difficult subject in the world, but I want to get through in 4 years, so I will be taking a full load of credits each semester, and that will take up most of my time.

So, I won't be on here very much anymore.

But, I will pop back in from time to time and rattle your cages some more, mainly when I come back to Eagar to visit my folks for Thanksgiving or Christmas break, and whenever I get really bored.

So, have fun everyone!

Sincerely,

Hans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Everyone believed they were "too smart" to fall for such obvious tricks...

---

Everyone also thinks they're special and unique and that everyone else are sheep. It really does underplay the sentiment, but I live that narrative by action. I've dismissed the insincere claims as people wear their badges of hypocrisy. As far as a commercial's success goes, I think I'd only ever be swayed if Natalie Portman told me to buy something, and only if she addressed me by name, and if she told me she wants me but in order to be with her I have to buy that thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

But, I will pop back in from time to time and rattle your cages some more

---

Thanks for being that voice of someone lacking a voice. Sometimes we just need to take a few swings at the speedbag after hearing some of the dumb shit we're unfortunately exposed to on the outside. You personified those types pretty accurately. However, I should correct you about rattling the cage. That assumes the individuals are tame, and you introduce a catalyst to get them riled up. How many of these people are tame otherwise?

Unfortunately, with the style of trolling you used, you'll be easily forgotten. For I've never really seen you make a statement for which I can attach a personality to. So if you ever plan on coming back, perhaps reinvent the troll style you will use, and perhaps we'll all forget about the current persona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Unfortunately, with the style of trolling you used, you'll be easily forgotten. For I've never really seen you make a statement for which I can attach a personality to. So if you ever plan on coming back, perhaps reinvent the troll style you will use, and perhaps we'll all forget about the current persona.

---

Yeah, we've already replaced him with Oleg. How "memorable" can anyone be if they can be replaced by Oleg? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Yeah, we've already replaced him with Oleg. How "memorable" can anyone be if they can be replaced by Oleg? :D

---

I remember thinking he was Oleg at one point, and that the introduction of both of them into one thread would end up a chalice-cunt situation just on an entirely lower level

Another domino falls in the struggle to destroy organized crime, errrrm....wait, I mean, organized labor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us...d-to-pass.html

INDIANAPOLIS — House Democrats brought state lawmaking to a halt in Indiana for much of this week, refusing for a third straight day on Friday to come out to their chamber floor in a procedural effort to stop “right to work” legislation at the center of a mounting battle over unions here.

But by Friday afternoon Republicans in the Senate succeeded in moving the measure out of a committee to the full Senate, where passage is likely next week. And by the end of the day, even Democrats in the House — who could face steep fines for not attending the session in the coming days — seemed to hint that there was only so much they could do to stop the provision from eventual adoption.

“We know we can’t stay out forever,” Representative B. Patrick Bauer, the Democrats’ leader, said after emerging Friday afternoon from a room in the Statehouse where the Democrats had been meeting privately and using the Internet to watch the floor proceedings they were missing.

Republicans have solid majorities in both the State House and Senate. But only in the Senate do they have such a big advantage that Democrats cannot avoid a quorum or stop votes on issues — an option House Democrats have enough seats for.

If approved, Indiana would become the first state in a decade to prohibit union contracts at private-sector businesses from requiring workers who choose not to be union members to pay dues or fees to the union. Twenty-two other states already have such laws, but Indiana would be the first in the Great Lakes manufacturing region, and passage here seems likely to encourage similar efforts already under consideration elsewhere.

While fights last year over union power and collective bargaining rights in places like Wisconsin and Ohio were relatively straightforward, one of the complications of the debate here is that “right to work” laws are somewhat more complicated to explain to the public. Even along the streets here, several passers-by acknowledged that they were not exactly sure — in spite of a fierce advertising war on the airwaves in Indiana — what such a law would mean.

Supporters say that Indiana’s measure is simply a matter of giving workers choices, and that it would help the state attract more businesses. Opponents say it would allow workers to benefit from the work of unions without paying for them and, more broadly, weaken collective bargaining, ultimately lowering wages and benefits.

In a city that is excitedly preparing to host the Super Bowl next month, the N.F.L. Players Association on Friday issued a sharp critique of the proposal, which the association deemed “a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights.”

As scores of union members gathered in the Statehouse halls, their cheers (and groans) sometimes echoing into a five-hour committee hearing on the question, Representative Jerry Torr, a Republican and a sponsor of the bill, said, “It’s not union-busting; it strengthens the union.” He added, “This is tremendous for Indiana.”

A year ago, the same issue arose here. At that time, the “right to work” proposal by Republicans, along with a series of other proposals the Democrats deemed anti-union, led to a standoff in which House Democrats fled Indianapolis for weeks, staying at a motel in Illinois to block a quorum.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, said last year that the measure was not his top priority, but more recently he has voiced strong support for its passage.

This time a disappearance by the Democrats to some other state was not under consideration, though no one was sure what would occur on Monday, when lawmakers are called back to work. Signs of tension had emerged within the Democratic caucus (including the resignation of one member in the leadership).

And by Friday afternoon, 5 of the state’s 40 House Democrats appeared to have parted ways with their colleagues and come to the floor.

To meet the House rules that 67 members be present to call for a vote, only 7 Democrats are needed.