New Discoveries?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 10:46:56 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.


Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.




Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I live in a community of 50K population Every day there are at least
five pages of employment ads, hundreds to the page, from entry level
to high paid professional. Yet unemployment is the same as the
national average. Check your paper and then tell me what the problem
is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.



Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 12:26:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.
Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.
Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic
techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.


That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?

New Discoveries?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:


While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and
fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that
wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative
treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we
pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the
situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery.


Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. I worled in the ehalth care
system on and off all my life. I can tell you that the emergency room is
the most abused medical facility that exists. I don't have the actual


I live in the real world...

Didn't I just say that in other words? It is highly abused for a
couple of reasons. Certainly, people cheat, but the vast majority of
abuse is because people can't pay for a regular doc.


statistics but I can guess that 1 out of every 10 patients is an
emergency. That is one of the major reasons insurance companies will now
no longer pay for the actual ER fee if there is not a procedure done or


Well, sure... I can't imagine them paying for a checkup, but I'm not
talking about that kind of visit. I'm talking about the heart attacks,
pneumonia cases, serious stuff, that are preventable with decent
healthcare on a regular basis.


an admission...as far as the "we pay" part, we will pay no matter what
for that particular segment of society that can't afford it. We pay
through taxes or through chartible contributions. What does it matter
what form it takes?


It matter quite a bit... we pay far more for ER care that shouldn't be necessary if those
people were covered by ins.


country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We
should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying
doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct


How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have
3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between
now and then, many people would die as a result.

The problem is not that there isn't health care, it's that people don;t
know where to go to look for it...there are all sorts of prtograms that


NO. It's that people can't AFFORD IT! Costs continue to skyrocket with
no end in sight.



Got news for you Jon...those people, with insurance, STILL USE THE
ER!!!!!! Been there...seen it....

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I always try to go forward not backward. It's called a discussion, and
should evolve, unless you're a right-wingnut and don't believe in
evolution. g

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

There are always going to be those sort. They are a very small
percentage of the poor. What's your point oh wanderer?

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.

Were you promoted? Did you end up as a manager in your time served (no
pun intended)?

Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.

Nope. I worked for the San Diego water district at $2.15/hour (it was
below mimimum wage, due to some strange agreement they had with the
University). I never did figure out how they got away with it.

I finally quit after 4 months, since I had no car and I had to be
there at 6am... it were a long bike ride on two-lane country roads.

Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

Must be your confusing attempt to rewrite logic. Sorry.

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic

But, you didn't start at minimum wage right? So, what point are you
trying to make? I started in a factory at minimum wage (also an entry
level position). I forget the $ number. After 6 mos, I was promoted to
a union job at $13.84/hr. Quite a nice jump and in those days a
fortune for a college student. I worked 2nd shift, got off at 11pm as
I recall.

techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.

Boss was an ahole and we regularly sparred about his bs. He needed me
more than I needed him, eventually, so I quit. No future there.

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
katy wrote:
Got news for you Jon...those people, with insurance, STILL USE THE
ER!!!!!! Been there...seen it....

Those people?? Don't feel you have to be specific. Are you now
claiming that the majority of those who use the ER for non-ER help are
the insured?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Got news for you Jon...those people, with insurance, STILL USE THE
ER!!!!!! Been there...seen it....


Those people?? Don't feel you have to be specific. Are you now
claiming that the majority of those who use the ER for non-ER help are
the insured?


Many....many people use the ER if they can't get into their family
doctir right away rather than waiting or using a Med Station...I can
never figure that one out since ER's are rife with bacteria and the
chances are that if you weren't sick when you went in you will be when
you leave...

New Discoveries?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 13:56:55 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I always try to go forward not backward. It's called a discussion, and
should evolve, unless you're a right-wingnut and don't believe in
evolution. g

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

There are always going to be those sort. They are a very small
percentage of the poor. What's your point oh wanderer?

Estimate is about three percent, which is plus or minus about half the
unemployed at any given time.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.

Were you promoted? Did you end up as a manager in your time served (no
pun intended)?

Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.

Nope. I worked for the San Diego water district at $2.15/hour (it was
below mimimum wage, due to some strange agreement they had with the
University). I never did figure out how they got away with it.

I finally quit after 4 months, since I had no car and I had to be
there at 6am... it were a long bike ride on two-lane country roads.

Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

Must be your confusing attempt to rewrite logic. Sorry.

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic

But, you didn't start at minimum wage right?
Below minimum wage at McDonalds. But, I moved on an up. that is the
point.

So, what point are you
trying to make? I started in a factory at minimum wage (also an entry
level position). I forget the $ number. After 6 mos, I was promoted to
a union job at $13.84/hr. Quite a nice jump and in those days a
fortune for a college student. I worked 2nd shift, got off at 11pm as
I recall.

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.


techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.

Boss was an ahole and we regularly sparred about his bs. He needed me
more than I needed him, eventually, so I quit. No future there.

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,

But not at McDonalds... that's my point.

So, what point are you

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Well then it's moot, since you didn't stay.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

Huh? Now you're losing it.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 12:26:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:


I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

Umm..Jon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress
that had been beating the Dems over the head for years to get rid of the old
system of paying unwed teenagers to stay home and make babies.

And, you can point to a web page that documents that... we're
waiting. Oh, Fox news doesn't count.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/27/2007 9:32 PM:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:36:42 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Umm..Jon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress
that had been beating the Dems over the head for years to get rid of the old
system of paying unwed teenagers to stay home and make babies.
And, you can point to a web page that documents that... we're
waiting. Oh, Fox news doesn't count.

Just do a Google search on "welfare reform" Clinton and Republican. You'll
quickly come up with a plethora of stories of how he vetoed 2 bills passed
by the Republican majority before deciding he'd had enough and signing the
third amid dire predictions from the left wing of his party..

The record is pretty clear that Clinton made a firm promise to
overhaul welfare. The GOP tried to take advantage and it backfired.
Their version was vetoed twice and headed toward a third, when under
pressure from Republican moderates the conservatives backed down and
Clinton won.

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:36:42 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Umm..Jon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress
that had been beating the Dems over the head for years to get rid of the old
system of paying unwed teenagers to stay home and make babies.

And, you can point to a web page that documents that... we're
waiting. Oh, Fox news doesn't count.

Just do a Google search on "welfare reform" Clinton and Republican. You'll
quickly come up with a plethora of stories of how he vetoed 2 bills passed
by the Republican majority before deciding he'd had enough and signing the
third amid dire predictions from the left wing of his party..

You mean Clinton wasn't in the "left wing" of his party??? I'm shock,
shocked to hear such a thing.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/12/12-15.html

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,

But not at McDonalds... that's my point.

So, what point are you

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Well then it's moot, since you didn't stay.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

Huh? Now you're losing it.


Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 10:33 AM:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:04:45 -0400, Jeff said:

The record is pretty clear that Clinton made a firm promise to
overhaul welfare. The GOP tried to take advantage and it backfired.
Their version was vetoed twice and headed toward a third, when under
pressure from Republican moderates the conservatives backed down and
Clinton won.

Jeff, I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. You can tell fairy tales to
little kids about the issue first coming up in 1992. But some of us have
much longer memories.

Sure thing, turnip. Most of that is basic public record. The only
slightly subtle point is that Newt's version of the bill had coupled
welfare reform with major changes in Medicaid. Moderate Republicans
led by John Ensign and Dave Camp sent a letter to Gingrich and he
finally gave in, and removed the Medicaid portion. Clinton had stared
down the GOP and they folded.

The bill still had strings, such as a restriction on legal immigrants
getting federal bennies, and a reduction in food stamps. For this
reason, the left wing complained. Clinton's famous cabinet meeting
comment was "This is a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of ****."
However, as a compromise, it was good, and Clinton deserves the
credit for getting it through.

By the way, two years later most of the food stamp programs were
restored, so this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 12:25 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:45:43 -0400, Jeff said:

this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

If you mean he finally was dragged to what the Republicans had been pushing
for years before, I suppose you can so characterize it. A bit like the
famous proposal to get out of Vietnam--"let's just declare victory and go
home."

Go ahead and spin your tales. As I say, some of us have longer memories.

The record is real clear, Clinton made welfare reform part of his 1992
platform. Its true that the left wing of the Democrats had blocked
reform for a long time, but by the same token, the right wing
Republicans were trying to go for a lot more than basic reform.

The bottom line is that it was Bill's version we ended up with, not
Newt's.

Hey Dave, you're covered in turnips!

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

I looked it up... National Pen... I had lots of jobs in college. g

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I have no idea. That's the way it was. I actually tried to organize
the envelop stuffers and pen stampers at one point... looked up the
procedure in the library, then started calling established unions when
I realized how difficult it would be. Mostly, they weren't
interested. The company had a lot of non-English speakers... probably
illegals... who knows. Anyway, the company found out someone was doing
this and went around saying they were going to give people lie
detector tests. Most of the "American" workers told them to f*ck off,
so it didn't go anywhere.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

Yah... nice job actually. Fun except for the ink smell.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

Ah, but sometimes, in fact most of the time, at a minimum wage job
that's just not possible. Anyone cannot do it if they choose anymore
than I can fly a kite in the midddle of a busy street... g

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Nope.

Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

Everything bad? No. Just a major attempt at the ruination of this
great country.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

And, I'm saying that is a very small minority of those who do minimum
wage jobs.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

Just did.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Sure thing, turnip. Most of that is basic public record. The only
slightly subtle point is that Newt's version of the bill had coupled
welfare reform with major changes in Medicaid. Moderate Republicans
led by John Ensign and Dave Camp sent a letter to Gingrich and he
finally gave in, and removed the Medicaid portion. Clinton had stared
down the GOP and they folded.

That's Turnip Esquire to you Jeff!

The bill still had strings, such as a restriction on legal immigrants
getting federal bennies, and a reduction in food stamps. For this
reason, the left wing complained. Clinton's famous cabinet meeting
comment was "This is a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of ****."
However, as a compromise, it was good, and Clinton deserves the
credit for getting it through.

Hillary did it.

By the way, two years later most of the food stamp programs were
restored, so this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

He's quoting Newt... the guy who was cheating on his wife (#2 or #3?)
while claiming he was after Clinton for lacking family values. I
remember him.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:24:05 -0400, Jeff said:

The record is real clear, Clinton made welfare reform part of his 1992
platform.

For those who don't believe the world began with the Johnny-come-lately in
1992, let me recommend
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...99/gipper.html

Or if you don't like a single source, a quick Google search of Reagan and
"welfare reform."

No bias there... "The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland
University is a conservative think tank in Ashland, Ohio, dedicated by
Ronald Reagan on May 9, 1983."

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 11:25:41 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

For those who don't believe the world began with the Johnny-come-lately in
1992, let me recommend
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...99/gipper.html

Or if you don't like a single source, a quick Google search of Reagan and
"welfare reform."

No bias there... "The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland
University is a conservative think tank in Ashland, Ohio, dedicated by
Ronald Reagan on May 9, 1983."

Don't say I didn't give you alternatives. Did you do the search I suggested?

Some... looks like Clinton did the right thing, even though he angered
some left-leaning groups.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 11:23:39 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

He's quoting Newt...

Who's quoting Newt?

And what relevance to the discussion has Newt's marital history?

If you don't know, do the research!


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 2:22 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:24:05 -0400, Jeff said:

The record is real clear, Clinton made welfare reform part of his 1992
platform.

For those who don't believe the world began with the Johnny-come-lately in
1992, let me recommend
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...99/gipper.html

Or if you don't like a single source, a quick Google search of Reagan and
"welfare reform."

So, you're claiming that Reagan wanted welfare reform but Clinton
actually did it?

Next, you'll be claiming the GOP wanted a balanced budget, but only
Clinton could make it happen.

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 12:08:58 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Some... looks like Clinton did the right thing, even though he angered
some left-leaning groups.

He had a good sense of which way the wind was blowing.

Is that a bad thing?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:32:56 -0400, Jeff said:

So, you're claiming that Reagan wanted welfare reform but Clinton
actually did it?

Please don't play the "you're claiming" game, Jeff. It's childish and
reminds me of Jon's silly games. My posts have been quite precise on the
point. To repeat, "he finally was dragged to what the Republicans had been
pushing for years before."

Do my "silly games" include pointing out that Rove and Cheney leakd
the name of an active, undercover CIA agent, which is a Federal crime?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 4:52 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:32:56 -0400, Jeff said:

So, you're claiming that Reagan wanted welfare reform but Clinton
actually did it?

Please don't play the "you're claiming" game, Jeff.

What game is that? Are you making a claim or not? I say you're
making a claim, but it simply isn't supported by the facts. Realizing
that you're wrong, you revert to silly attacks. That's the type of
"game" you play.

It's childish and
reminds me of Jon's silly games. My posts have been quite precise on the
point. To repeat, "he finally was dragged to what the Republicans had been
pushing for years before."


You're the one "playing games" Dave. Clinton made a major campaign
pledge, and then made good on it, even though major elements of his
own party were against it. Rather than giving credit where credit is
due, you have to characterize it as being "dragged." Reagan and Bush
Sr may have talked about it, Newt tried to get his version in, but it
was Clinton that won the day, pure and simple. Bill wasn't "dragged,"
Newt was embarrassed.

The simple truth is that the Democratic Party has become the
mainstream party that actually gets things done, like welfare reform
and a balanced budget. The Republican Party can only win by scaring
the uninformed with bogus issues like gay marriage. They dropped the
ball on protecting the country, they wasted American lives in a
foolish war, and time after time have shown themselves to be
thoroughly incompetent. Bush's presidency will go down as the worst
disaster for America since the Great Depression.

New Discoveries?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:10:33 GMT, Charlie Morgan said:

elected Bill Clinton

In what year?

and a REPUBLICAN congress.

In what year?

As I said, the Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming after
throwing
out the previous majority in Congress. I'll credit Clinton with being
sensitive to the way the wind was blowing, however. He figured out
that
Hillarycare was going nowhere, wetted his finger and put it to the
wind, and
turned in the direction it indicated.

Sure it was his finger? And I recall it was some intern name of Monica
who wetted it . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:10:33 GMT, Charlie Morgan said:

elected Bill Clinton

In what year?

and a REPUBLICAN congress.

In what year?

As I said, the Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming after throwing
out the previous majority in Congress. I'll credit Clinton with being
sensitive to the way the wind was blowing, however. He figured out that
Hillarycare was going nowhere, wetted his finger and put it to the wind, and
turned in the direction it indicated.

You said it, but that doesn't make it a fact. You should give Clinton
credit for listening to what voters wanted and actually doing
something. Maybe Bush should take a listen.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

On 28 Mar 2007 11:20:52 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

I looked it up... National Pen... I had lots of jobs in college. g

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I have no idea. That's the way it was. I actually tried to organize
the envelop stuffers and pen stampers at one point... looked up the
procedure in the library, then started calling established unions when
I realized how difficult it would be. Mostly, they weren't
interested. The company had a lot of non-English speakers... probably
illegals... who knows. Anyway, the company found out someone was doing
this and went around saying they were going to give people lie
detector tests. Most of the "American" workers told them to f*ck off,
so it didn't go anywhere.

This the infamous wildcat strike company? Passed over a wildcat
strike without reaction, then the Union committee passed over an
unfair labor practice without comment. When was this. Had to be
between 76 and sometime in the eighties, because I think this company
moved manufacturing to my area of the country sometime in the
eighties. And I'm not surprised they did, if what you say is true.
Incompetent management and incompetent union committe.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

Yah... nice job actually. Fun except for the ink smell.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

Ah, but sometimes, in fact most of the time, at a minimum wage job
that's just not possible. Anyone cannot do it if they choose anymore
than I can fly a kite in the midddle of a busy street... g

"Most of the time" ?, Give me some facts to back up another statement
grabbed from the air.

I went back to visit Steve D., the manager at my below minimum wage
job from time to time, as I said, had a great deal of respect for him.
All my co-workers gone. All moved on to bigger and better things.
Steve used to keep up with most of his ex-employees for a while.

My sons all worked entry level jobs, (not minimum, as stated minimum
is rarely paid in the poorest state in the nation, moreover, it is
rarely paid anywhere), they've moved on and up as have their
coworkers.

Now I realize, being well versed in statistics when I was a quality
manager, these events do not make a statistically relevant sample.
You, however, have offered nothing but your opinion as usual.

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Nope.

Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

Everything bad? No. Just a major attempt at the ruination of this
great country.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

And, I'm saying that is a very small minority of those who do minimum
wage jobs.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

Just did.
No facts given. Where are they. Go back and read it again. Do you
just hate Bush or do you have some facts that link him as a cause of
an age old problem of people who do not want to work or prepare
themselves to work. BE SPECIFIC!!!!!

New Discoveries?
 

UNIONS SUCK !


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On 28 Mar 2007 11:20:52 -0700, lid
(Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid
(Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I had to join the union. It was a completely different
job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San
Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've
worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

I looked it up... National Pen... I had lots of jobs in
college. g

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like
California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside
the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining
process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could
happen.

I have no idea. That's the way it was. I actually tried
to organize
the envelop stuffers and pen stampers at one point...
looked up the
procedure in the library, then started calling
established unions when
I realized how difficult it would be. Mostly, they
weren't
interested. The company had a lot of non-English
speakers... probably
illegals... who knows. Anyway, the company found out
someone was doing
this and went around saying they were going to give
people lie
detector tests. Most of the "American" workers told them
to f*ck off,
so it didn't go anywhere.

This the infamous wildcat strike company? Passed over a
wildcat
strike without reaction, then the Union committee passed
over an
unfair labor practice without comment. When was this.
Had to be
between 76 and sometime in the eighties, because I think
this company
moved manufacturing to my area of the country sometime in
the
eighties. And I'm not surprised they did, if what you say
is true.
Incompetent management and incompetent union committe.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is
not a right to
work state.

Yah... nice job actually. Fun except for the ink smell.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that
you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in
the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that
organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one.
Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

Ah, but sometimes, in fact most of the time, at a minimum
wage job
that's just not possible. Anyone cannot do it if they
choose anymore
than I can fly a kite in the midddle of a busy street...
g

"Most of the time" ?, Give me some facts to back up
another statement
grabbed from the air.

I went back to visit Steve D., the manager at my below
minimum wage
job from time to time, as I said, had a great deal of
respect for him.
All my co-workers gone. All moved on to bigger and better
things.
Steve used to keep up with most of his ex-employees for a
while.

My sons all worked entry level jobs, (not minimum, as
stated minimum
is rarely paid in the poorest state in the nation,
moreover, it is
rarely paid anywhere), they've moved on and up as have
their
coworkers.

Now I realize, being well versed in statistics when I was
a quality
manager, these events do not make a statistically relevant
sample.
You, however, have offered nothing but your opinion as
usual.

New Discoveries?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
This the infamous wildcat strike company? Passed over a wildcat
strike without reaction, then the Union committee passed over an
unfair labor practice without comment. When was this. Had to be
between 76 and sometime in the eighties, because I think this company
moved manufacturing to my area of the country sometime in the
eighties. And I'm not surprised they did, if what you say is true.
Incompetent management and incompetent union committe.

That certainly seems right, but I don't know anything beyond my experience.
76/77 seems about right. They had terrible management. I was originally
running a paper folding machine... huge beast on which I was originally very
poorly trained because they didn't want to take someone off one for very
long to train me. I got pretty good at it... to the point of being able to
climb off the small ladder and have a seat while listening to the rhythmic
beat of the machine. When it started to get out of sync, I'd get busy. One
time some guy in a suit came by while I was sitting and started bitching at
me for sitting. I told him to f*ck off, so he got all in a huff and walked
off, saying he was going to have me fired. Apparently he was a senior VP or
something (fat jerk). But, that was the one time (literally) when the forman
told him to stuff it, as the other two operators were either on sick or had
quit. Eventually, I had to take them to the labor relations board to get my
last few paychecks. They kept saying the "check was in the mail" after I
finally quit, but never did send it.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your perspective I
guess. They were always pretty good to me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your
perspective I
guess. They were always pretty good to me.


SCAB !


What's scab? Some new kinda illegal drug?

Wilbur Hubbard

New Discoveries?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your
perspective I
guess. They were always pretty good to me.


SCAB !

New Discoveries?
 

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:12:51 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
This the infamous wildcat strike company? Passed over a wildcat
strike without reaction, then the Union committee passed over an
unfair labor practice without comment. When was this. Had to be
between 76 and sometime in the eighties, because I think this company
moved manufacturing to my area of the country sometime in the
eighties. And I'm not surprised they did, if what you say is true.
Incompetent management and incompetent union committe.

That certainly seems right, but I don't know anything beyond my experience.
76/77 seems about right. They had terrible management. I was originally
running a paper folding machine... huge beast on which I was originally very
poorly trained because they didn't want to take someone off one for very
long to train me. I got pretty good at it... to the point of being able to
climb off the small ladder and have a seat while listening to the rhythmic
beat of the machine. When it started to get out of sync, I'd get busy. One
time some guy in a suit came by while I was sitting and started bitching at
me for sitting. I told him to f*ck off, so he got all in a huff and walked
off, saying he was going to have me fired. Apparently he was a senior VP or
something (fat jerk). But, that was the one time (literally) when the forman
told him to stuff it, as the other two operators were either on sick or had
quit. Eventually, I had to take them to the labor relations board to get my
last few paychecks. They kept saying the "check was in the mail" after I
finally quit, but never did send it.


In my plant you would have been written up. My supervisors and
managers could not cuss out their subordinates and vice versa. If
that was their culture, they could not work for me. And managers
could not order operators to do anything except correct an unsafe act
or condition. Has to do with the concept of single reporting
line.They would have to go to your direct supervisor, and I can assure
you he would not have still been employed if he told him to "stuff
it", regardless of the current staffing problems.

If you had a problem with a VP or anyone else, the greivence procedure
was there for you to voice it.

I averaged about 20 total grievences/year (300 employees) and had an
orderly operation.

New Discoveries?
 

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your
perspective I
guess. They were always pretty good to me.


SCAB !

I thought a scab was when you cross pickets?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:12:51 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
This the infamous wildcat strike company? Passed over a wildcat
strike without reaction, then the Union committee passed over an
unfair labor practice without comment. When was this. Had to be
between 76 and sometime in the eighties, because I think this company
moved manufacturing to my area of the country sometime in the
eighties. And I'm not surprised they did, if what you say is true.
Incompetent management and incompetent union committe.

That certainly seems right, but I don't know anything beyond my
experience.
76/77 seems about right. They had terrible management. I was originally
running a paper folding machine... huge beast on which I was originally
very
poorly trained because they didn't want to take someone off one for very
long to train me. I got pretty good at it... to the point of being able to
climb off the small ladder and have a seat while listening to the rhythmic
beat of the machine. When it started to get out of sync, I'd get busy. One
time some guy in a suit came by while I was sitting and started bitching
at
me for sitting. I told him to f*ck off, so he got all in a huff and walked
off, saying he was going to have me fired. Apparently he was a senior VP
or
something (fat jerk). But, that was the one time (literally) when the
forman
told him to stuff it, as the other two operators were either on sick or
had
quit. Eventually, I had to take them to the labor relations board to get
my
last few paychecks. They kept saying the "check was in the mail" after I
finally quit, but never did send it.


In my plant you would have been written up. My supervisors and
managers could not cuss out their subordinates and vice versa. If
that was their culture, they could not work for me. And managers
could not order operators to do anything except correct an unsafe act
or condition. Has to do with the concept of single reporting
line.They would have to go to your direct supervisor, and I can assure
you he would not have still been employed if he told him to "stuff
it", regardless of the current staffing problems.

If you had a problem with a VP or anyone else, the greivence procedure
was there for you to voice it.

I averaged about 20 total grievences/year (300 employees) and had an
orderly operation.




At that point, I wasn't union. I was getting minimum wage. I moved on
eventually to a different job on a 52" printing press.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your
perspective I
guess. They were always pretty good to me.


SCAB !

I thought a scab was when you cross pickets?

If you picket, it will never heal!

CWM


TMI


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
om...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
news:JoOdneZ5kakCWZbbnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@dejazzd .com...

UNIONS SUCK !



I've been a member of a couple of them... depends on your

perspective I

guess. They were always pretty good to me.


SCAB !

I thought a scab was when you cross pickets?

If you picket, it will never heal!

CWM



TMI


And will elave a scar...