|
Stupidity of labor unions
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California,
Indiana and Kentucky: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm And they spit on the USMC!!!! Unions = communionists They will all burn in hell!!!! Amen! Bob Crantz |
Bob Crantz wrote:
Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California, Indiana and Kentucky: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm And they spit on the USMC!!!! Unions = communionists They will all burn in hell!!!! I thought conservatives believed in property rights. *** *** quote *** *** "UAW International will no longer allow members of the 1st Battalion 24th Marines to park at Solidarity House if they are driving foreign cars or displaying pro-President Bush bumper stickers "While reservists certainly have the right to drive nonunion made vehicles and display bumper stickers touting the most anti-worker, anti-union president since the 1920s, that doesn't mean they have the right to park in a lot owned by the members of the UAW," the union said in a statement released Friday. " *** *** end quote *** *** Personally, I am not a fan of most unions and don't like their taking it out on military reservists, they own the place. They have every right to say who can park there. They can ban anybody they chose, including Marines driving foreign cars with pro-Bush bumper stickers, or left-handed banjo players with the middle initial 'M'. DSK |
Dave wrote:
One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law with what is right. That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say. But notice that I do not approve of, nor agree with, this particular exercise of private property rights. Just noting that "conservatives" attacking it are being rather two-faced. If you're not willing to stand on your principles when it's inconveneient or even costly, then you don't have any. And standing on principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. DSK |
"DSK" wrote Personally, I am not a fan of most unions and don't like their taking it out on military reservists, they own the place. They have every right to say who can park there. They can ban anybody they chose, including Marines driving foreign cars with pro-Bush bumper stickers, or left-handed banjo players with the middle initial 'M'. They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK, they can ban Canadians. SBV |
Scott Vernon wrote:
They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK, they can ban Canadians. Where they gonna park their snowmobiles now, eh? Actually, you can ban anybody you want from your own property, certainly including minorities... but if your private property includes something attractive to the public, you might have to endure them kicking up a fuss. ....I think bagpipe players would be on more lists than banjo players, but it might be a close call... ;) DSK |
Oddly, I like the sound of bagpipes. Of course, I haven't had to listen to
them for more than a few minutes at a time. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "DSK" wrote in message .. . Scott Vernon wrote: They can't ban Blacks, or Jews, or Indians, or Canadians, well OK, they can ban Canadians. Where they gonna park their snowmobiles now, eh? Actually, you can ban anybody you want from your own property, certainly including minorities... but if your private property includes something attractive to the public, you might have to endure them kicking up a fuss. ...I think bagpipe players would be on more lists than banjo players, but it might be a close call... ;) DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave wrote: But notice that I do not approve of, nor agree with, this particular exercise of private property rights. Just noting that "conservatives" attacking it are being rather two-faced. I whole heartedly approve of property rights! Regardless of that, labor unions are still stupid. If you're not willing to stand on your principles when it's inconveneient or even costly, then you don't have any. What about standing on them when it matters regardless of the cost? Or even better, simply living them. And standing on principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. DSK Doug, there's no place in hell for you! Amen! Bob Crantz |
One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law with
what is right. That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say. Dave wrote: Not at all. There seems to be an unfortunate trend among many to say that if anything is morally wrong, there ought to be a law against it. The converse of that notion is that if there's no law against something it's morally right. Both are dodges of any responsibility to exercise moral judgment, consigning one's conscience to the custody of legislators and judges. Agreed. Attempts to legislate morality (either by omission or comission) is automatically doomed to failure, for one thing, and my personal tastes run more towards freedom than straight-jacketing all citizens according to the cultural whimsy of the current clique in power (whomever they may be). This is one of the reasons why I regard the U.S. Constitution as a work of genius. A lawyer is an expert in what the law allows, and to some extent what the law allows you to get away with. But a lawyer has no more expertise than his neighbor in assessing what is morally right. He can raise the question for a client, and perhaps help the client think it through. But he cannot answer it for the client. Sure. But not all lawyers think that way, unfortunately... nor do all accountants ;) I'm reminded on a conversation I had recently with one of my partners, who is an orthodox Jew. He represented another orthodox client whose spouse was in arrears on child support. One of the remedies available was to have the delinquent spouse jailed for contempt for failing to pay. He told me that Jewish law prohibits a Jew from "ratting out" another Jew to be jailed by the civil authorities, and asked whether he should tell his client that this option was available. I told him he was ethically obligated under the canons of ethics to zealously represent the client, and that meant he had to tell the client the option was available. What else he told her, if anything, about the moral choice, was beyond the scope of the canons of ethics. To become the keeper of the client's conscience by withholding the option was entirely improper. An interesting dilemma. I assume he also told her that he could not pursue such action and would need to retain another lawyer. Your partner basically has to decide which set of rules has the higher priority... but it seems to me, that by telling the client that she had the option of putting the ex in jail, he certainly violated the spirit & intent if not the letter of the Judaic civil authority re/jail prohibition. I have read a bit about medical ethics situations that were altogether impossible... also read enough to have a low opinion of most "ethicists." DSK |
And standing on
principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. Bob Crantz wrote: Doug, there's no place in hell for you! Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so. However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with your above statement ratehr violently... DSK |
Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to others.
That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded souls, may not be such a bad place. Amen! Bob Crantz "DSK" wrote in message . .. And standing on principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. Bob Crantz wrote: Doug, there's no place in hell for you! Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so. However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with your above statement ratehr violently... DSK |
Yours and Dave's post are brilliant!
Are you sure you're not Capt Neal in disguise? Amen! Bob Crantz "DSK" wrote in message .. . One should never confuse what can be done without violating the law with what is right. That's a funny thing for a lawyer to say. Dave wrote: Not at all. There seems to be an unfortunate trend among many to say that if anything is morally wrong, there ought to be a law against it. The converse of that notion is that if there's no law against something it's morally right. Both are dodges of any responsibility to exercise moral judgment, consigning one's conscience to the custody of legislators and judges. Agreed. Attempts to legislate morality (either by omission or comission) is automatically doomed to failure, for one thing, and my personal tastes run more towards freedom than straight-jacketing all citizens according to the cultural whimsy of the current clique in power (whomever they may be). This is one of the reasons why I regard the U.S. Constitution as a work of genius. A lawyer is an expert in what the law allows, and to some extent what the law allows you to get away with. But a lawyer has no more expertise than his neighbor in assessing what is morally right. He can raise the question for a client, and perhaps help the client think it through. But he cannot answer it for the client. Sure. But not all lawyers think that way, unfortunately... nor do all accountants ;) I'm reminded on a conversation I had recently with one of my partners, who is an orthodox Jew. He represented another orthodox client whose spouse was in arrears on child support. One of the remedies available was to have the delinquent spouse jailed for contempt for failing to pay. He told me that Jewish law prohibits a Jew from "ratting out" another Jew to be jailed by the civil authorities, and asked whether he should tell his client that this option was available. I told him he was ethically obligated under the canons of ethics to zealously represent the client, and that meant he had to tell the client the option was available. What else he told her, if anything, about the moral choice, was beyond the scope of the canons of ethics. To become the keeper of the client's conscience by withholding the option was entirely improper. An interesting dilemma. I assume he also told her that he could not pursue such action and would need to retain another lawyer. Your partner basically has to decide which set of rules has the higher priority... but it seems to me, that by telling the client that she had the option of putting the ex in jail, he certainly violated the spirit & intent if not the letter of the Judaic civil authority re/jail prohibition. I have read a bit about medical ethics situations that were altogether impossible... also read enough to have a low opinion of most "ethicists." DSK |
SUCK - UP!
To the Lava Lakes with you! CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to others. That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded souls, may not be such a bad place. Amen! Bob Crantz "DSK" wrote in message . .. And standing on principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. Bob Crantz wrote: Doug, there's no place in hell for you! Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so. However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with your above statement ratehr violently... DSK |
You crossed eyed drunk girly boy!
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:b7tZd.31476$i6.4380@edtnps90... SUCK - UP! To the Lava Lakes with you! CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... Doug, you think for yourself. That alone is a perceived threat to others. That's why they wish you hell. Hell, if its full of independently minded souls, may not be such a bad place. Amen! Bob Crantz "DSK" wrote in message . .. And standing on principle is one of the defining characteristics of a real conservative. Bob Crantz wrote: Doug, there's no place in hell for you! Me auld Irish granny would smile down upon you for saying so. However when she was standing right in front of me, she disagreed with your above statement ratehr violently... DSK |
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California, Indiana and Kentucky: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm And they spit on the USMC!!!! Unions = communionists They will all burn in hell!!!! Amen! Bob Crantz |
Typical liberal garbage. They support the gov't as long it agrees with
them. They support free speach as long as it agrees with them. They support Marines as long as every one of them agrees with them. What a major snub! And this after the Marines are fighting and dieing to support freedom in the world, and ultimately freedom here for unions to continue to fleece their membership. L -- Enjoy my new sailing web site http://sail247.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California, Indiana and Kentucky: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm And they spit on the USMC!!!! Unions = communionists They will all burn in hell!!!! Amen! Bob Crantz |
Ah Balls,
Wasn't going to get into this one BUT: not being a Union Man I do have to put my 2 cents it. Isn't obvious that the Unions, stupid or not are the direct results of the STUPIDITY ON MANAGEMENT!! Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where business exists with management and labor working as a team, each respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism. Ole Thom |
Dave,
Great post on law and morality!! A bull's Eye comment. Thanks Ole Thom |
Thom Stewart wrote:
Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where business exists with management and labor working as a team, each respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism. Definitely true. Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! DSK |
Doug,
"Two stupids don't make one smart" You been observing ASA post and replies? Ole Thom |
Liberals pander! Liberals pander!
"Lonny Bruce" wrote in message news:KsDZd.6088$GI6.2179@trnddc05... Typical liberal garbage. They support the gov't as long it agrees with them. They support free speach as long as it agrees with them. They support Marines as long as every one of them agrees with them. What a major snub! And this after the Marines are fighting and dieing to support freedom in the world, and ultimately freedom here for unions to continue to fleece their membership. L -- Enjoy my new sailing web site http://sail247.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... Yes, they are banning foriegn built cars that are built in California, Indiana and Kentucky: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-115531.htm And they spit on the USMC!!!! Unions = communionists They will all burn in hell!!!! Amen! Bob Crantz |
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-117640.htm A classic example of the old tenet that actions have consequences. Max |
"DSK" wrote in message Thom Stewart wrote: Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where business exists with management and labor working as a team, each respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism. Definitely true. Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! This is getting scary, Doug, but I'm agreeing with much of what you've been saying lately. Earth must have shifted on its axis, or something. Global warming? Max |
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message Doug, "Two stupids don't make one smart" You been observing ASA post and replies? Good one, Thom. You beat me to it. Max |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:23:45 -0500, DSK wrote
this crap: Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
They're easy to prove. Go ask Jimmy Hoffa.
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:23:45 -0500, DSK wrote this crap: Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"DSK" wrote
Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! two half wits don't make a whole? Scout |
Might as well join in Thom!
I think perspective has much to do with how a person feels about unions. Being from the same home town, we both know what happened to U.S. Steel, Fairless Works, and maybe the union there had much to do with their demise. I know guys who bragged about being able to fall asleep resting on a shovel. But in the trades, the difference in training between union and non-union tradesman is staggering. Take the Philadelphia Steamfitters for example. Their training is a 10 year program into mastery. Drexel University recognizes their 5 year apprenticeship as being worthy of 42 credits toward a B.S. in Construction Management. I've played the hvac game on different sides (owner, manager, non-union technician and union technician). I have to say that it's tough to beat a union steamfitter for competency in that field. I've seen more than one non-union shop go union just because they got sick of losing techs to union jobs after they had gotten some experience. There is always the exception, i.e., I've seen some outstanding non-union technicians. And I've seen a few union guys who were bums. But hvac contractors in Philadelphia don't hold onto bums and no one protects them. If a contractor is not happy with a tech, they just cut him loose and bring in someone better. I guess what I'm saying is I see a huge difference between skilled, educated union workers and other laborers (no offense to laborers). Scout "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Ah Balls, Wasn't going to get into this one BUT: not being a Union Man I do have to put my 2 cents it. Isn't obvious that the Unions, stupid or not are the direct results of the STUPIDITY ON MANAGEMENT!! Where good, humane, fair management exists, Unions do not. Where business exists with management and labor working as a team, each respecting one an other, there is nothing to gain with Unionism. Ole Thom |
Jimmy Hoffa is buried in the muck pond onthe property next door to us...the
old geezer who used to own the property said so...said that a black stretch limo pulled into the access and men dragged a heavy bag out of the trunk and disappeared into the woods....they returned a while later with no bag...he said it was man-size...I asked him if he called the cops...he said "heck, no...what do I want to wear cement boots for?" I think he also ate pasture mushrooms a lot... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... They're easy to prove. Go ask Jimmy Hoffa. "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:23:45 -0500, DSK wrote this crap: Unions are just a method of countering the stupidity, greed, and You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. short-sightedness of ownership... and/or management... with stupidity, greed, and short-sightedness from the workers. To coin a phrase, two stupids don't make a smart! You're lying. You can't prove any of your statements. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Scout wrote:
two half wits don't make a whole? Not when it's spelled like that DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Scout wrote: two half wits don't make a whole? Not when it's spelled like that How about.. You can't make a whole wit two half-wits? CM |
Two half-wits = wit-less
Bob Crantz+ Neal Warren= ??? well you know. Simple Math Ole Thom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com