Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:


Harry is basing his guess about my religion on a couple Christmas
carols I
posted here. He has no idea if I even go to church.



You are always shoveling Christianity here. I don't know what "sect"
claims you and in fact, I don't understand why any legitimate sect of
Christianity would want you. You are no more a Christian than you are
an officer.

Sect? Don't you mean off-shoot of Catholicism?


No, I meant *sect*.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you *had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to trust
me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact that
you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you *had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military
service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact that
you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.


Who are you writing to now, Mr. Savant-less Idiot?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you *had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military
service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact
that you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.


Who are you writing to now, Mr. Savant-less Idiot?

You.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you
*had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military
service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact
that you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.


Who are you writing to now, Mr. Savant-less Idiot?

You.


The post you quoted was not mine, idiot.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to trust
me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater wrote:



I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to trust
me on that. Bah humbug.

--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


It's only the fools who are fooled.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


It's only the fools who are fooled.

If it lies like a Harry Krause and if it whines like a Harry Krause and
if it complains like a Harry Krause it must be a Harry Krause.

Maybe you should do some work towards becoming a more personable and
likable individual.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


It's only the fools who are fooled.

If it lies like a Harry Krause and if it whines like a Harry Krause and
if it complains like a Harry Krause it must be a Harry Krause.

Maybe you should do some work towards becoming a more personable and
likable individual.


You should report to the Soylent Green depot for processing. No maybes
about it.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.



Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.

I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:02:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.


I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.

I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

You'd think he'd be singing the praises of whoever did.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Dec 11, 12:26*pm, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.

Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.

It's only the fools who are fooled.

If it lies like a Harry Krause and if it whines like a Harry Krause and
if it complains like a Harry Krause it must be a Harry Krause.

Maybe you should do some work towards becoming a more personable and
likable individual.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He can't, he's been caught in so many lies that he's had to turn to
being a fat, vulgar low life for deflection!

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:02:21 -0500, BAR wrote:

John wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:59:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:36:09 -0500, Boater
wrote:


I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.
Another fool. Check the headers, fruitcake.
Make a complaint to somebody's ISP.

I wonder if Harry is complaining because, " I am not a coward. I am not a
liar. You are just going to have to trust me on that. Bah humbug," is a
false statement.
I think he is just getting it on record that he didn't make the statement.

You'd think he'd be singing the praises of whoever did.


Our boy John Herring, the "Christian" ex-soldier and chief handjobber of
rec.boats

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.
Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Hey Don, tell us about your military experience. Maybe you can get
Harry to
tell us about his also. Unless you've been there and done that, I
wouldn't
think your derogatory comments very appropriate. If either of you
*had*
been there or done that, you wouldn't be making them.

Have you ever noticed that the derogatory comments about military
service
always come from those who've not been there and done that?

I am not a coward. I am not a liar. You are just going to have to
trust me on that. Bah humbug.

You are a coward. You are a liar. Nobody trusts you due to the fact
that you have been proved to be a liar time and time again.


Who are you writing to now, Mr. Savant-less Idiot?

You.


The post you quoted was not mine, idiot.


Take some mellow yellow pills and chill

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances,
I would readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not
normal circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it
could be a severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let
GM go into bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry
that provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point
out, it was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's
troubles into crisis.
Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.


You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.

Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. "Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:14:07 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.
Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take into
consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances, I would
readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not normal
circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it could be a
severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let GM go into
bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.
You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry that
provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point out, it
was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's troubles into
crisis.

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.

If the demand for the autos is there, the supply will be furnished by the
companies remaining in business. If those companies must gear up to meet
the new demand, they will do so. If doing so means hiring people, then
people will be hired.

Let GM go.

Infrastructure spending makes much more sense than bailing out a failing
auto company. And, it solves one of the problems - gets people working.

The unions are done. They serve to purpose.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:50:55 -0500, BAR wrote:


Does the rule of law mean anything? From where do the laws
of the USA
come? I find it interesting that a lawyer, The Obama, is
so ignorant of
the laws of the USA. What is he hiding regarding his birth?
Absolutely nothing, he has disclosed his birth certificate,
and the state of Hawaii has declared it legitimate.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/81031064

We have seen a computer generated piece of paper. What we
want is a photo copy of his birth certificate.
What you want is not relevant.
Sure it is. I am a US citizen.

Yeah? Prove it. How do we know your birth certificates were not
photoshopped, and that you haven't bribed someone at the hall
of records in the city where you were born?

Contact the State of Washington's Vital Records Department.

Maybe you bribed them.

See where this is going?

D'oh.
Let's meet, I'll show you a real birth certificate and a computer
printout.



How would *you* prove it was real during a meeting? Anyone can
print up just about anything these days. I'm not a document expert,
nor do I know or care about what documents are issued wherever you
were born.

Meet you? Don't make me puke at this hour.
I wasn't expecting you to accept.


There's no reason to meet a turd like you. You offer up nothing
unique or interesting.

Maybe Bertie has some interesting service medals to show off.
Oh wait....he didn't go anywhere or do anything.


Latrine Guard Duty. It isn't easy snapping that rifle from shoulder to
shoulder while you hand guys a roll of toilet paper. He kept the spares
on his bayonet.

Interesting circle jerk.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Dec 13, 9:54*pm, D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. *While protected in Chapter 11 *a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) *contracts. * Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. *If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". * Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into consideration America's interests? * Under normal circumstances,
I would readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not
normal circumstances. *We are in recession, and it's looking like it
could be a severe one. *Personally, I don't think we can afford to let
GM go into bankruptcy at this time.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. *It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. * Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. *We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry
that provides 1-3 million jobs. *I don't get it. *And, I would point
out, it was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's
troubles into crisis.
Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. *It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.

You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.

I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.

Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? *That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. *"Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation. If you work too
hard the union gets on your case. It is in their interest to have
lot's of extra hands around to pay the dues.. Usually it's some excuse
like, "we might get busy so we need to have extra hands around". The
town here wanted to hire a couple of more guys for the street crew so
they slowed down to a crawl last year doing the fall leaves. I was
there when they were all sitting around joking about it. They got
their guys over the summer and low and behold, they were able to make
the schedual this year.. Now what to do with those guys the rest of
the year? I used to work for the town years ago, I had between 1.5 to
two hours work a day and was told directly to make it last all day...

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"D K" wrote in message
...

The unions are done. * They serve to purpose*.


They "serve to purpose" what, Dummy?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

American workers have been sheared for so long by their corporate
employers, they think being sheep is their lot in life.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Dec 13, 10:49*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. *Want to guess where all that money
went? *

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

You mean progress? If you want to keep up with the rest of the world,
you have to take advantage of new technology... It's the technology
that makes them more productive.. Do you really think the American
worker now works 20% harder than our grandparents or have the tools
and facilities supply lines etc, just gotten better?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.
I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html
Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:47:00 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:49:31 -0600, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:19:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation.

I guess that's why worker productivity has increased by 20% since 2000,
but wages have only increased by 1%. Want to guess where all that money
went?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

This will tell you all you need to know - a fact fudger...

"Prior to his service with the Congress, Lilly served as Director of
Campaign Services for the Democratic National Committee, Central
States Coordinator in the McGovern Presidential Campaign and as a bill
drafter for the Missouri legislature."

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/LillyScott.html

Check out a few of these names on the FEC sight.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts

Totally unbiased wouldn't you say?

On the surface, it sounds like the premise of the article has some merit,
i.e., productivity has increased, but the profits therefrom have not gone
to the employees as in the past. If the profits from American corporations,
like the auto industry, have gone up so remarkably in the past eight years,
one must wonder why they're all on the verge of bankruptcy.

To lay the whole issue at the feet of Bush simply highlights the stupidity
and bias in the author.

But it provides good quotes for liberals.

And, if the Center for American Progress says Lily is and 'expert', then he
must be... correct?
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out of
the Bush government.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out of
the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of 'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the five
remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay of the
remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out
of the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Boater wrote:


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.


This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html
Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.
As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out
of the Bush government.
That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?



Actually, the need for workers to have "representation" has much to do
with the tendency of employers to exploit them. Now, exploitation can
be an "umbrella" that includes all manner of nasties, including, for
example, the speeding up of an assembly line to "increase production" to
the point where working on it is dangerous.

In the good old days, there used to be a sort of compact between
employer and employee, in which the employer provided a decent place to
work, decent working conditions, and wages and benefits that rose
gradually. In the 1980s, greed took over, and employers looked for more
and easier ways to "increase" their profits. They began casting their
workers by the wayside, a trend that continues today.

The best answer for "globalization" is the slow but increasing amount of
cooperation and exchange of information between labor unions, so that
eventually there simply is no place for employers to hide from decent
wages, working conditions and benefits.

Personally, I'd like to see more heads of senior corporate execs and
their "advisers" on pikes.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out
of the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question, will
ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal insults -
rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on his
statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no bearing
on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?"
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it
is 2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes
out of the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot, and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity
of the five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double
the pay of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?"

Are you talking labor productivity? Multifactor productivity? What
productivity model? Kurosawa? Gollop?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:01:06 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Boater wrote:


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.


This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?


He is all yours. The temp is almost 40F, the winds are calm, the frost
delay is almost over, and I'm going golfing!

Yippee!


--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html
Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.
As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out
of the Bush government.
That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

What does "productivity in the manufacturing sector was 26% between
2000-2007" mean. Do you mean there was a 26% in crease in productivity
in the manufacturing sector between 2000 and 2007?

The individual worker cannot take credit for the robot's productivity.
The individual worker needs to be measured individually to determine
whether that individual worker has increased their productivity.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and do
enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:14:22 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering it
is 2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes
out of the Bush government.

That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot, and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity
of the five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double
the pay of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of what
"productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the first
link posted.

I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's statement
that "The lazy ones who won't work need the representation." Well,
apparently, that's not true, now is it?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a
robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?"

Are you talking labor productivity? Multifactor productivity? What
productivity model? Kurosawa? Gollop?

Widget productivity.

Jeeez.

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question?

Goodbye. Going golfing. You've proven my point.
--
John

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:20:34 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

What does "productivity in the manufacturing sector was 26% between
2000-2007" mean. Do you mean there was a 26% in crease in productivity
in the manufacturing sector between 2000 and 2007?

Yes.

The individual worker cannot take credit for the robot's productivity.
The individual worker needs to be measured individually to determine
whether that individual worker has increased their productivity.

Tell that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Geez, you can go through
all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the issue. Productivity has increased
20% in the non-farm business sector, 26% in the manufacturing sector, and
wages have increased 1-3% depending on who you listen to. It's not a
difficult concept, wages have not kept up with productivity.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.


Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and do
enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.

Horse****!