• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Everybody saw this coming.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Bark louder, little dog.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

I was promised a recession.

This blog will pay for itself.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

This fight is for everything.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Shocking

Shocking

by John Cole|  January 27, 200910:33 pm| 184 Comments

This post is in: Politics, Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

This just can’t be true:

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community’s top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call — including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG — were urged to persuade their clients to send “large contributions” to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.

If this is true, not another damned dime. Let everyone of them fail. Not one more tax cut to businesses with over 50 people, and in fact, raise their damned taxes. Send the money to unemployment benefits funds, because corporate America simply can not be trusted with anything. In the most serious economic crisis in decades, and these folks are spending the money to organize to crush labor.

Seriously, if this is accurate, these people are sick.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « This Should Be Entertaining
Next Post: Praying for fail »

Reader Interactions

184Comments

  1. 1.

    Jon

    January 27, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    It’s like a dog humping your leg – you can’t blame them for being this way, it’s in their nature. Thing is, though, when the dog doesn’t stop humping your leg, you have to lop his nuts off.

    The exact method of lopping is left to the discretion of Rahm the Nub, as that is arguably within his core competency.

  2. 2.

    southpaw

    January 27, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Eh, they’re not going to refrain from stinging you just because you saved their lives. It’s in their nature to sting you.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    I can’t say I’m surprised at all.

    Everything that’s happening right now is about the Employee Free Choice Act. The Republicans opposing the auto bailout is the most notable example. But a lot of posturing about all kinds of things is really just about EFCA.

  4. 4.

    bayville

    January 27, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Sick is an understatement.

  5. 5.

    jenniebee

    January 27, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Bank of America has, at least it seems to me, been acting desperate for cash. I’ve gotten so many calls from them inviting me to give them money for safekeeping, it reeked of desperation like a 39-year-old virgin the night before his birthday. It was like they were trying to raise cash in ways that wouldn’t get noticed.

  6. 6.

    bago

    January 27, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    I can’t wait for the commercials to boycott home depot.

    "I could be out on my 350 foot yacht…"

  7. 7.

    Balconesfault

    January 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Why do you think Bush set Paulsen loose to give all these people money?

  8. 8.

    scarshapedstar

    January 27, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Gee… no quid pro quo here, none whatsoever, lalalalala can’t hear you.

  9. 9.

    NickM

    January 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    DougJ is right. EFCA is going to be like Armageddeon to the right. It has the potential — or at least they think — to be that transformative. I hope they’re right, and I hope Obama has the balls for a fight on it.

  10. 10.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    I love this shit, to be honest. We’re such a smug, sanctimonious society and seeing what really goes on while the media is out sniffing panties and following Blago around, it just makes me laugh.

    But I’m sure David Brooks is right, that if we all just had more faith in system, everything would be a-okay.

    Ha ha.

  11. 11.

    kmeyer57

    January 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Hey now. I work for a company with 70 employees, and they have a philosophy of pre-empting unions by giving their employees good wages, benefits & retirement plans. Nothing wrong with that. Builds a loyal workforce with low turnover. Raise the number to 1500 or so, and you’re on.

  12. 12.

    NickM

    January 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Misatke. Obama clearly has the balls — I meant I hope he’s willing to use some of his capital to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed.

  13. 13.

    Wilson Heath

    January 27, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    "But socialism! Communism! DFH’s!"

    When there was an actual socialist movement in this country, the socialists were mostly right about labor relations. And they gave us most of the niceties we’ve come to expect, like evenings and weekends off. And industry, abetted by the GOP, has been looking to bring us back into the 19th Century ever since.

    Y’know, if the union leaders had gotten their way, the Big 3 US auto makers wouldn’t be carrying their crushing pension obligations, either. Yep, DFH socialist commie unions could have saved them if they had only listened.

    I generally agree with the F them sentiment, but noses and faces and all.

  14. 14.

    jenniebee

    January 27, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Completely OT: PG Porn. Starring Nathan FIllion!

  15. 15.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    I wonder how much bail-out money is going to the SarahPac.

    You’ve got to admit, this is all pretty fucking funny. We give banks billions of dollars and they spend a lot of it fucking workers up the ass. It’s straight out of some kind of satire.

  16. 16.

    TenguPhule

    January 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    are sick. need to be shot, then drawn and quartered, then have their heads mounted on pikes, bronzed and set in front of the National Republican Headquarters to stare into the building for the next 10,000 years.

    Fixed.

  17. 17.

    TenguPhule

    January 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    Seriously, if this is accurate, these people are sick. need to be shot, then drawn and quartered, then have their heads mounted on pikes, bronzed and set in front of the National Republican Headquarters to stare into the building for the next 10,000 years.

    Fixed.

  18. 18.

    cosanostradamus

    January 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    .
    If it’s "class warfare" they want, let’s give it to them.

    If you have any money in BoA, withdraw it, immediately. And let them know why.
    .

  19. 19.

    Tonal Crow

    January 27, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    It’s time to ignore the private banks and get credit flowing by establishing the Federal National Bank, which’ll provide every kind of loan that private banks used to provide.

  20. 20.

    Brian J

    January 27, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    I wish I could be outraged by what you described, but I can’t summon it. There’s no reason to be shocked by it. Instead, I find it sadly typical.

    I wish we could live in a world where there was no necessity for unions. I wish there would be managers and bosses who took an active interest in ensuring their workers were well compensated and had a chance for upward mobility. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz comes to mind, at least from what I know.

    I also understand why the people in the position to help crush labor movements do what they do. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I can process why they act like that.

    It just seems bizarre that it’s okay for those trying to oppose the labor movement to always get their way. If corporations can legally exist, it it really out of the question for unions to be giving a chance?

  21. 21.

    Andrew

    January 27, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    1) Nationalize the banks.
    2) Enslave all upper management in the salt mines.
    3) Profit.

    No ???.

    The end.

  22. 22.

    Comrade Darkness

    January 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    I’m heartened, oddly, by the notion that so many of you can still generate outrage.

    Maybe I just need a good night’s sleep to top up my outrage tank.

  23. 23.

    scarshapedstar

    January 27, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    I can’t wait for the commercials to boycott home depot.

    "I could be out on my 350 foot yacht…"

    No shit. And you know what I would characterize as "chutzpah" during a Depression, Bernie? Talking about how you’d rather be on your 350-foot yacht.

  24. 24.

    KG

    January 27, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    The Employee Free Choice Act could stand some tweaking, I think. But opposing it in any form seems pretty stupid, and I’m fairly libertarian in my leanings. The problem, from my view, is that these companies have been playing fast and loose, basically making shit up as they go along, and have taken the stance of "we got ours, too bad you didn’t get yours." You fuck shit up, you should be responsible for fixing it. Not that I’d trust these bastards to fix shit now, but still.

    Also, since I’m sure someone will ask, the changes I’d make to the EFCA are: putting in place some penalty for unions if they are found to be coercing potential members to sign cards; and, making it non-binding arbitration the first time around, where if the parties don’t agree then negotiations are frozen for 6 months and started again with binding arbitration the second time around.

  25. 25.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 27, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Actually, what the EFCA is about is codifying typical union tactics and behavior into law.

    The Service Employees International Union announced Thursday that it had placed a senior manager at its biggest California local on leave and that two lower-ranking staffers had lost their jobs, because of allegations that other employees were retaliated against in connection with a widening spending scandal.

    The Times reported last month that some workers who did not immediately sign a letter of support for the Los Angeles local’s president, Tyrone Freeman, who is at the center of the scandal, had their union cellphone service canceled and were transferred to distant jobs.

    One staffer who balked at signing the letter was later fired, according to co-workers.

    During a subsequent staff meeting, some employees threatened to retaliate further against anyone who provided information to The Times about Freeman, several of those in attendance said.

    Wonder what’s going to happen to those employees who don’t sign union cards? Think their "friends" are going to let them get away with that? Think their "friends" who retaliate against anyone who dares complain about union leaders committing a crime are going to let them dissent and not sign cards?

    Of course, the reason employees like this need unions is brilliantly shown in this example.

    A group of union advocates and employees had a message Wednesday for City Council: "buddy-punching" of timecards is OK, and city employees recently disciplined for it were wronged.

    About 60 people clad in their green union shirts, many city sanitation workers, told the council that buddy- punching was allowed by supervisors.

    The city completed an investigation last week in which 18 employees were reprimanded, including two who were fired, for buddy-punching. That’s when a supervisor punches the timecards of workers after they go home, giving them credit for time not worked.

    Sanitation workers and union representatives said it was a common practice that had gone on for years in the city’s Environmental Services Department.

    City officials acknowledged as much, but said the two supervisors who were fired, the three supervisors who were suspended and the 13 sanitation workers reprimanded were told the practice was against city policy but they continued to do it.

    If you want to know why businesses don’t want unions, take a look at the most unionized sector of the United States labor force: Federal, state, and local government.

    Real models of productivity, customer service, and effectiveness, those.

  26. 26.

    Miriam

    January 27, 2009 at 11:40 pm

    You know, if I wasn’t a liberal I would probably take my gun and shoot the bastards. As it is I think I will just cry.

  27. 27.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    @North Dallas Thirty

    Why are you wingnuts so fucking long-winded?

  28. 28.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    Why are you wingnuts so fucking long-winded?

    Actually, the length of my post was due to the fact that I was quoting both the Los Angeles Times and the Arizona Daily Star.

  29. 29.

    demimondian

    January 27, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    @DougJ: Because they need to repeat their lies as often as possible. Right now, the lies are on topic, so it’s spewing them en masse — and probably in a hit and run comment.

    But you know all that, man…

  30. 30.

    John Cole

    January 27, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    I don’t give two hoots in hell about the pro’s and con’s of EFCA, right now I am so god damned mad that my tax dollars that were supposed to be spent securing the financial system are being spent pursuing political agendas. I am so fucking pissed I am seeing red and want to string these pricks up.

  31. 31.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    @North Dallas Forty:

    Actually, the length of my post was due to the fact that I was quoting both the Los Angeles Times and the Arizona Daily Star.

    What about the twelve fucking paragraphs that weren’t in blockquotes?

  32. 32.

    DougJ

    January 27, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    I don’t give two hoots in hell about the pro’s and con’s of EFCA, right now I am so god damned mad that my tax dollars that were supposed to be spent securing the financial system are being spent pursuing political agendas. I am so fucking pissed I am seeing red and want to string these pricks up.

    Are you really surprised by this? All those cute pet pictures are getting to you, man.

    I agree it’s an amazing story, but it’s so predictable it’s hard for me to gin up much outrage.

  33. 33.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 27, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    I don’t give two hoots in hell about the pro’s and con’s of EFCA, right now I am so god damned mad that my tax dollars that were supposed to be spent securing the financial system are being spent pursuing political agendas.

    Oh, don’t worry; I’m sure you can overcome that and explain why it’s perfectly relevant to give money for political agendas when you read about Barney Frank’s payola for his own little slice of subprime.

  34. 34.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    What about the twelve fucking paragraphs that weren’t in blockquotes?

    Sorry. I’m still figuring out how to do the formatting here. They were meant to be, but apparently the commenting tool prefers you do a new blockquote call each time you put in a line break.

  35. 35.

    Dulcie

    January 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    @North Dallas Thirty: So it’s okay to worry about the pennies that some guys who are in a union are getting when the big guys are robbing us all blind? Oh, I forgot – must.not.mention how the haves are pitting the American people against each other, lest one be accused of formenting "class warfare"

  36. 36.

    Rick Taylor

    January 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    It’s been clear for a while we need to nationalize the banks, not bail them out. Take them over, fire their management, investigate their assets, find what’s worth keeping, and eventually resell it to new management. This idea we shouldn’t nationalize them because it’s agarins free-market principles means we get the worst of socialism and capitalism. It’s simple. You don’t want to socialism? You don’t want your bank taken over and run by the government? Then don’t invest billions of dollars in creative investments you do not understand that bring about an economic catastrophe just because housing prices collapsed. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

  37. 37.

    John Cole

    January 27, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    @North Dallas Thirty: I have better things to do than contemplate the deep thoughts of some jackass who links ace of spades and who posts things like “guess the party” to show some alleged liberal bias. Because that is new and original and has never been proven to be nonsense before.

  38. 38.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    January 27, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    Hopefully being under the microscope now will have public opinion turned further against our capitalist overlords and perhaps enable some moderate progressive gains in the next few years.

    Call me pollyannish.

  39. 39.

    Brick Oven Bill

    January 27, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    I sense the levels of midichlorians. This is healthy.

    People talk of nationalizing the banks. This has already been done though, in my opinion. Compare Rubin’s crew and the current administration. And then tell me that Geithner is his own man. Watch Geithner’s eyes. American labor living in a long line of small concrete rooms.

    But the answer is not forcing people into unions. Unions make everything less efficient, and drive work out of the country. The answer is to return to historic levels of tariffs, which should be in the 30%-40% range. Notice how this very logical option is never mentioned on television.

    A protectionist world hurt America in the 1930s because America was the world’s biggest exporter back then. England was an importer and their economy only shrunk 5% because protectionism forced Brits to make their own stuff.

    Modern America is the world’s biggest importer.

  40. 40.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:03 am

    So it’s okay to worry about the pennies that some guys who are in a union are getting when the big guys are robbing us all blind?

    You do realize, of course, that you are defending unions who steal from the people they allegedly represent?

    And also those are taxpayer pennies that these unions are taking for not doing work. Why don’t you and your fellow Obama Party members come out and tell the public that union members should be paid for not working and that, if they object to that, the taxpayers are engaging in "class warfare"?

  41. 41.

    El Cid

    January 28, 2009 at 12:03 am

    So, you have a gigantic asshole corporation which acts like a raging giant asshole, and when they run into tough times, they get handed $25 billion from the government no questions asked.

    Why exactly are they not supposed to feel like they were being subsidized specifically to keep being the same assholes they were?

  42. 42.

    John Cole

    January 28, 2009 at 12:05 am

    ND30: Read this slowly so it sinks in. I am not defending any alleged misdeeds of unions. I am sorry they killed your dog and stole your bike.

    Meanwhile, back to the point at hand, these assholes who greeded our economy into the ground are using the money we gave them to rescue them to pursue a political agenda, the only aim of which is to greed their way to more obscene levels of profit the next three decades while the rest of the country works for 8 dollars and hour and can’t afford a happy meal on an hour’s salary.

    Seriously, go piss off. Now is not the damned time.

  43. 43.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:06 am

    I have better things to do than contemplate the deep thoughts of some jackass who links ace of spades and who posts things like “guess the party” to show some alleged liberal bias.

    Anything to avoid reading criticisms of Barney Frank and the Obama Party’s endorsement of bailing out politically-connected banks who waste money on executive compensation and risky loans, eh John?

  44. 44.

    John Cole

    January 28, 2009 at 12:06 am

    And just to save you some time, in the hope you go away, yes, Michael Moore is fat and Al Gore’s house uses more electricity than mine.

  45. 45.

    Mrs. Peel

    January 28, 2009 at 12:09 am

    @North Dallas Thirty: So it’s okay to worry about the pennies that some guys who are in a union are getting when the big guys are robbing us all blind?

    I think you’ll find If North Dallas Thirty decides to take root here he is one of the premier contrarian trolls of our time. He’ll sift through gallons of effluvia to find some sort of supposed tit-for-tat BS on Dems to justify any wingnut actions. And if all else fails there’s always Bill Clinton. He’s been barred from AmericaBlog time and time again.

    And Michael will especially love this part. He’s a gay repiggie.

    Know your enemy.

  46. 46.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Meanwhile, back to the point at hand, these assholes who greeded our economy into the ground are using the money we gave them to rescue them to pursue a political agenda, the only aim of which is to greed their way to more obscene levels of profit the next three decades while the rest of the country works for 8 dollars and hour and can’t afford a happy meal on an hour’s salary.

    How about you actually start a business, John? Pay semi-skilled labor $100k a year and try to be profitable. Contribute something to the economy instead of demanding that the successful be punished.

    Meanwhile, since you’re so against Federal dollars being spent on "political" aims, I’m sure you’ll be willing to support a ban on any organization that receives Federal dollars for anything from making political contributions or spending any money on political organizing.

    That should go over like a lead balloon among the unions and the Planned Parenthood set.

  47. 47.

    John Cole

    January 28, 2009 at 12:13 am

    How do I install Cleek’s pie script?

  48. 48.

    DougJ

    January 28, 2009 at 12:14 am

    NDT: Okay, I’ll bite. When has the government ever given Planned Parenthood 25 billion dollars? And when have unions ever been bailed out by the federal government?

  49. 49.

    Stevenovitch

    January 28, 2009 at 12:17 am

    On which planet does semi-skilled labor get paid 100k/year?

  50. 50.

    El Cid

    January 28, 2009 at 12:18 am

    I think all companies with over 3 employees ought to be forced into having a union. The union should have voting rights over the owners’ personal possessions and property, too. And we should start funding the enforcement of this system by retroactively rolling back the estate tax for millionaires.

    And any chickenshit right wingers who aren’t too busy bragging about how badly they peed their pants on 9/11 or calling the SuperSekret neighborhood Homeland Security club when they think they saw a Mooozlim sneekin’ around who are taken up with whining about how all the god damn poor stupid rich people are being taxed too much should just get the shit beat out of them by people who went bankrupt due to their health care costs, while they’re being held in place by veterans who lost limbs in the pants-pissing right’s war in Iraq.

  51. 51.

    Joshua Norton

    January 28, 2009 at 12:18 am

    How do I install Cleek’s pie script?

    If you have Greasemonkey installed, go here:

    http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=2149

    I hope you can read coding because you’ll have to go inside and find the part that relates to user names – they will be in quotation marks. Then you can replace one of the names already there or add your own.

  52. 52.

    bago

    January 28, 2009 at 12:20 am

    And also those are taxpayer pennies that these unions are taking for not doing work.

    Uhm, Did you notice the taxpayer BILLIONS while you were scratching around for pennies?

    Sense of scale. I haz it.

  53. 53.

    Dulcie

    January 28, 2009 at 12:21 am

    @North Dallas Thirty:

    You do realize, of course, that you are defending unions who steal from the people they allegedly represent?

    I wasn’t defending anyone. I’m simply saying that you have no sense of proportion.

    What’s the difference between a union member stealing from their employer and the banks stealing from the taxpayers? About 1 trillion dollars, i’d say.

    You’re defending people who, just two months ago, came to the government (which they don’t believe in) and BEGGED for a bailout. A bailout using OUR money. And now they want to use that money to screw the same people that they just asked to help them.

    And you’re appalled at some union guys clocking each other out early?
    Added: Dick

  54. 54.

    Michael G

    January 28, 2009 at 12:22 am

    Contribute something to the economy instead of demanding that the successful be punished.

    I think we are talking about the failed and bailed-out banking system here, so I am not exactly sure how ‘successful’ comes into play.

  55. 55.

    bago

    January 28, 2009 at 12:23 am

    instead of demanding that the successful be punished.

    Begging the government for BILLIONS of monies so you can continue operations is not "success". It is FAIL.
    EPIC FAIL.

    We are punishing EPIC FAIL.

  56. 56.

    bago

    January 28, 2009 at 12:26 am

    Well, I got one in first.

  57. 57.

    Joshua Norton

    January 28, 2009 at 12:31 am

    We are punishing EPIC FAIL.

    As in Epic Fail.

  58. 58.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:31 am

    Then since you all oppose giving money to failures, you should then immediately state that the "alternative energy" projects you wish to fund should become profitable before they receive a dime of taxpayer money.

  59. 59.

    DougJ

    January 28, 2009 at 12:34 am

    @NDT

    Stop changing the fucking topic. Or are you conceding the first two topics you brought up?

    Good God, you wingnuts.

  60. 60.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:35 am

    And, since you oppose giving money to failing banks because of their political connections, especially banks that make bad loans and waste money in executive compensation, then you should be screaming at Barney Frank for writing a specific exception into TARP for banks that do exactly that. ( http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1147407&format=comments&cnum=4 ).

  61. 61.

    Fulcanelli

    January 28, 2009 at 12:37 am

    C’mon Mr. Cole, what could possibly upset you about hearing the actual words of the stewards of a pro-right wing corporate culture that:
    Openly admits to buying our elected officials in wholesale lots,
    Hides profits offshore in shell companies to avoid paying corporate taxes while relentlessly bitching and moaning about corporate tax rates, while we pay for the roads, schools and everything else,
    Gambles and wipes it’s asses with it’s customers’ (our) money playing vastly over leveraged shell games,
    Then loses it, sending the US economy circling down the drain and people out of their homes and jobs,
    And then swaggers up, puts a gun to the heads of taxpayers like you and me like a Hell’s Kitchen pimp and says "Gimme Mah Money, Bitch!" I need a bailout. It’s not like, you know, NEWS, or anything…

    You seem like too smart a guy to not have seen ANY of this coming. You had no clue that this was what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and Congressional Republicans and even Bill Clinton with his fucking NAFTA have been up to for almost 30 years with their "deregulation and lower taxes" mantra? Free fucking market, my ass. I got your free fucking market, right here… Free to starve.

    Remind me again, just what exactly was the actual benefit of the Bush tax cuts in 2004? How many new jobs did they create? Anybody know someone who has one five years later?

    What the fuck did you think St. Reagan’s "Morning in America" was all about. What did you think Newt Gingrich’s "Contract With America" was all about? What did you think Tom DeLay’s "K Street Project" was all about?

    "It’s OK to be rich again" was a quote from some oh-so-repressed Washington socialite I remember seeing in a newspaper column a few months after Reagan was elected, as I threw up a little in my mouth.

    So what was it they distracted you with when you supported the Republicans as they busied themselves laying the groundwork for this fucking debacle? God, Guns, Gays? Jingoistic Patriotism and the Flag? Scary brown people who were gonna come and rape all the white wimmin’? Diaper-headed’ foreigners?

    Those conference calls didn’t surprise or shock me, in fact I laughed out loud as Mrs. Fulcanelli had steam coming from her ears as she listened. I’ve had my torch and pitchfork ready for a long, long time.

    You’re Shocked? Jesus H. Tap-Dancing-Christ, man. You actually fucking work for a living don’t you? You never should have bought into their shit.

    /end rant

  62. 62.

    Cassidy the Racist White Man

    January 28, 2009 at 12:38 am

    @ND30
    Would love your option…then we can revoke the tax status of churches and cut the faith based bullshit.

  63. 63.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:38 am

    Then to Doug’s question: of PP’s $926 million in income in the last period on which they report, over $336 million of it came from the government. Meanwhile, the second is rather a strange statement; don’t you think it’s a little odd that unions who consist of workers who are paid by the government are allowed to engage in political activity, especially endorsement of candidates?

  64. 64.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    January 28, 2009 at 12:39 am

    I speak wingnut, let me interpret.

    Semi-skilled union laborers would be making 100K/year but their unions are stealing from them so they only bring home around 40K but that’s crazy money anyway for a bunch of parasites who won’t start their own business Howard Roark John Galt Dagny Taggart Ayn Rand the virtue of selfishness fap fap fap, ohh, ahhhh.

    And we wuz against the bailout so what’s yer point?

    Now I must find cheetos.

  65. 65.

    Conservatively Liberal

    January 28, 2009 at 12:40 am

    Seriously, if this is accurate, these people are sick. need to be shot, then drawn and quartered, then have their heads mounted on pikes, bronzed and set in front of the National Republican Headquarters to stare into the building for the next 10,000 years.

     

    Fixed my fix.

    Fix’t your fixed fix. ;)

    Republicans like to pretend that unions are the end of the world, that if allowed to workers would unionize across America. Nope. Unions are effective at addressing shitty employers. If an employer treats their employees well the employees will see no advantage to unionizing, and possibly a few disadvantages (for both them and their employer). Happy workers will not be interested in forming a union.

    Unions are good at addressing employers who only want to milk their workforce for all it is worth regarding wages, working conditions and any other issue where an employer sees a way to profit to the detriment of their workforce. Ayn Rand was wrong and the Republican party has proven it. Corporations are not benevolent entities who will do good if they would only be allowed to operate without restrictions, regulations or rules.

  66. 66.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:41 am

    Would love your option…then we can revoke the tax status of churches and cut the faith based bullshit.

    LOL….I think churches would be a lot better off than all the leftist tax-exempt "charities" and "advocacy groups".

  67. 67.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 12:45 am

    What’s the difference between a union member stealing from their employer and the banks stealing from the taxpayers? About 1 trillion dollars, i’d say.

    As I recall, you lefties were screaming about the necessity of bailing these banks out back when the Obama Party was trying to win Congressional seats and the Presidency by doing it.

    Now, suddenly we flip-flop and the money that the Obama Party voted overwhelmingly to give them is "stealing".

  68. 68.

    DougJ

    January 28, 2009 at 12:49 am

    NDT: You’re not even going to address the fact that you change the topic once your point is shot down?

  69. 69.

    Jim

    January 28, 2009 at 12:49 am

    "Punishing the successful"?!??!?! – you loathsome prick. The "successful" have fucked up our economic system so badly with stupid ass financial instruments that served no useful purpose other than fill their greedy little pockets with money and produced nothing but ruin. I am so fed up with the argument that the Dems want to punish the productive members of society. The men and women who go to work everyday, raise their families and struggle to give their kids a good life are the real productive ones in this society. John Thain (Mr. Office redecorated to a tune of a cool $1.2M) and his ilk should be ass-rapped with red hot pokers. They have done nothing but take take take out of the system while the middle class has to take on load of debt just to maintain a facade of plugging along. Citi is the epitome of mismanagement so it needs billions and billions of taxpayer money, while of course buying a fancy corporate jet made in France and spending $400M for naming rights to the Mets’ new stadium. But no, it’s all the union’s fault. Without unions everything would be just hunky-dory. Up yours jackoff.

  70. 70.

    DougJ

    January 28, 2009 at 12:50 am

    As I recall, you lefties were screaming about the necessity of bailing these banks out back when the Obama Party was trying to win Congressional seats and the Presidency by doing it.

    Another change of topic.

  71. 71.

    Fulcanelli

    January 28, 2009 at 12:51 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Is there like a decoder ring or something that helps you do that? Just askin’…

  72. 72.

    Dulcie

    January 28, 2009 at 12:51 am

    @North Dallas Thirty: Yep, it was just the "lefties" – no repubs supported that bailout, did they? I can’t remember now – did John McCain suspend his campaign to go to Washington so he could SAVE AMERICA?

    It was all part of our evil, evil plan to get Obama elected. How’d that work out?

  73. 73.

    Surreal American

    January 28, 2009 at 12:53 am

    Not for a minute did I entertain the idea that any of those corporate types would genuinely reconsider any aspect of their "Atlas Shrugged" mindset.

    Even while standing in the dole queue.

    Once they (and only they) recover, it’s back to "business as usual"

  74. 74.

    Nick

    January 28, 2009 at 12:56 am

    John, it’s Republican DNA. You didn’t have enough for the disease to kill your soul. They still do.

  75. 75.

    Dulcie

    January 28, 2009 at 12:56 am

    @North Dallas Thirty: The Obama Party? Really? No Michael Moore? Al Gore? Clinton did it? Whitewater? Shrillary? Wow, i’m really disappointed in you.

    All you have is the Obama Party? That’s really sad, man.

  76. 76.

    Matt

    January 28, 2009 at 1:02 am

    The city completed an investigation last week in which 18 employees were reprimanded, including two who were fired, for buddy-punching. That’s when a supervisor punches the timecards of workers after they go home, giving them credit for time not worked. Sanitation workers and union representatives said it was a common practice that had gone on for years in the city’s Environmental Services Department.

    Is that really so uncommon? I guess it depends on the amount and frequency, but at my private-sector job, we send people home early w/ pay a couple times per year at least. I don’t think it’s a matter of people being dishonest or cheating the system so much as it is low-level supervisors doing what they can to reward people whose efforts aren’t really recognized or rewarded by the bureaucracy above them. I mean, I sign timecards–but I have no control over wages or bonuses or raises. Realistically, neither does my boss. And realistically, neither does his boss. They can put people up for raises or promotions, but wages have been frozen by upper management for the last year, and even before that they maxed out at like 3-5%. We can’t really pay anyone more–all we can do is make them work less every now and then.

  77. 77.

    Josh E.

    January 28, 2009 at 1:02 am

    Back to your first post, ND30, are you saying that a story indicating that the SEIU is punishing its staffers for retaliating suggests that the SEIU turns a blind eye to retaliation?

    And if we are to conclude that unions are rotten through and through based on two examples, do you think we should abolish the corporate form because Wal-Mart violates labor standards and discriminates against female workers?

  78. 78.

    jharp

    January 28, 2009 at 1:04 am

    Hey North Dallas Thirty,

    Go fuck yourself. I have been ignoring you at dan riehls (I’m a lefty but visit there anyways) since you suggested that I should have aborted my special needs daughter. But it is very pleasing to me to see you getting your ass handed to you here.

    You are a vile piece of scum.

    And in case you missed it. Again, go fuck yourself.

    And my deepest gratitude to the posters here who have put this fucking asshole in his proper place,

  79. 79.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:08 am

    The men and women who go to work everyday, raise their families and struggle to give their kids a good life are the real productive ones in this society.

    Except when they make more than you do, at which point they become the "evil rich" who should be punished and destroyed.

    Unless they donate to the Obama Party, of course, in which case they can have special exceptions written into the bailout program specifically for them (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1147407&format=comments&cnum=4).

    Or unless they’re big Obama Party supporters like Franklin Raines, who can dance off with their multimillion-dollar bonuses and go to work for the Obama Party while sticking the taxpayers with the bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

  80. 80.

    Common Sense

    January 28, 2009 at 1:10 am

    @jharp:

    Well, we all know how Dallas "Christians" treat special needs kids.

    But YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME amirite ND3?

  81. 81.

    pbfishtaco

    January 28, 2009 at 1:16 am

    Now THAT was an interesting thread!
    Can I come back in the morning and haz some more, please?
    Especially that football guy.

  82. 82.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:17 am

    I have been ignoring you at dan riehls (I’m a lefty but visit there anyways) since you suggested that I should have aborted my special needs daughter.

    Actually, jharp, you’ve not tried to repeat that claim over at Riehl World View since I quoted the actual post to which you’re referring in which you quoted me directly — which makes obvious that you’re lying (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/11/children-at-the-gate.html#comment-138046236).

  83. 83.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:21 am

    Well, we all know how Dallas "Christians" treat special needs kids.

    Yup; they state that what happened was wrong, apologize, forfeit the win, and fire the coach involved (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/dmn/stories/012609dnspocovenantnu.2781526.html).

  84. 84.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:26 am

    Back to your first post, ND30, are you saying that a story indicating that the SEIU is punishing its staffers for retaliating suggests that the SEIU turns a blind eye to retaliation?

    Yup.

    Which brings up the excellent question of why one should remove one of the primary safeguards against retaliation — the secret ballot.

    And if we are to conclude that unions are rotten through and through based on two examples, do you think we should abolish the corporate form because Wal-Mart violates labor standards and discriminates against female workers?

    Problem is, you aren’t concluding that; you’re merely trying to make excuses for why you tolerate retaliation by unions.

  85. 85.

    jharp

    January 28, 2009 at 1:30 am

    North Dallas Thirty,

    Again, you can go fuck yourself.

    Again, you are a vile piece of slime.

    Don’t make me pull up your post. Just go away. And you can ram your shitty blog right up your ass.

    I’ll continue to ignore you. And again my deepest gratitude to the posters who put this utterly repulsive and despicable human being in his proper place.

  86. 86.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 1:33 am

    Back to your first post, ND30, are you saying that a story indicating that the SEIU is punishing its staffers for retaliating suggests that the SEIU turns a blind eye to retaliation?

    Yup.

    I’m sure that makes sense on your planet, but can you please put it in terms that will make sense to those of us living in reality? How does the SEIU punishing people for retaliation prove that the SEIU never punishes people for retaliation?

  87. 87.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:34 am

    Don’t make me pull up your post.

    Go for it. :)

  88. 88.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:36 am

    How does the SEIU punishing people for retaliation prove that the SEIU never punishes people for retaliation?

    Question: was that before, or after, the fact that they were retaliating was massively publicized?

    You see, given that the first question asked was whether or not the SEIU turns a blind eye towards retaliation, that does make a difference.

  89. 89.

    Limniade

    January 28, 2009 at 1:39 am

    The rich are not "making more than I do" through wages. And they are making more than I do as a direct result of the work that I do.

    I love the Republican fantasy that taxing the rich is "punishment", as is condemning their extravagantly undeserved compensation, but taxing the rest of us is right and good, and we should be kissing the rich’s asses as they spend our tax dollars looking for further ways to keep us from fucking with their system of financial feudalism.

    And by "love" I mean that each principle of the Republican philosophy should be engraved on a nail, all of which should be embedded spike-out into a baseball bat, and turned into a giant dildo to be used on the very people who promulgated and continue to perpetuate this criminal absurdity.

  90. 90.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 1:40 am

    Question: was that before, or after, the fact that they were retaliating was massively publicized?

    You’re the one who brought it up, pal — you go find that out and bring us back a link to prove your claim that the SEIU only punishes retaliation in response to publicity is true. Not that it’s true inside your head because you really really want to believe it, but that it actually is true in reality where other people can see it.

    Unless you have proof, into the liars’ bin you go.

  91. 91.

    mak

    January 28, 2009 at 1:41 am

    NDThirty:
    So, just to sum up, since you choose to change the subject after being pwned, you concede that
    1. you lied about the reason for your first, endless post
    2. That tax dollars used to bail out bank are being used by those banks to pursue a political agenda targeting the sources of those funds, taxpaying wage earners.
    3. That the misappropriation of bailout money by Wall-Streeters is justified by a couple union guys punching out their buddies;
    4. That Democrats did not, could not pass the bailout bill without McCain and every other Republicant who voted for it (in other words, that you were wrong to say that it was the dems’ bailout bill);
    5. That neither unions nor Planned Parenthood – nor, for that matter, any enterprise other than those run by republican corporatists — has ever been bailed out, to the tune of $25 billion or otherwise, and
    6. That you are vile scum and, apparently, a self-hating gay repiggie.
    Did I miss anything?

  92. 92.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 1:44 am

    Except when they make more than you do, at which point they become the "evil rich" who should be punished and destroyed.

    Taxes are not punishment. Full Stop.

  93. 93.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:46 am

    The rich are not "making more than I do" through wages. And they are making more than I do as a direct result of the work that I do.

    Question: do you feel the same way about Michelle Obama, and that her salary is "extravagantly undeserved" (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html)? Or Caroline Kennedy? Or John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry? Or Nancy Pelosi?

  94. 94.

    Limniade

    January 28, 2009 at 1:47 am

    You forgot that he apparently buys into the delusion that giving up any chance at fair compensation for his labor, affordable health care, or a decent living wage is going to make him rich someday. And then when he’s rich, he’ll really be poor, because he’ll have to pay taxes.

  95. 95.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:50 am

    You’re the one who brought it up, pal—you go find that out and bring us back a link to prove your claim that the SEIU only punishes retaliation in response to publicity is true.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union5-2008sep05,0,7889525.story

  96. 96.

    Beej

    January 28, 2009 at 1:51 am

    Oh, my, Pie. I really like pie, don’t you?

  97. 97.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 1:54 am

    Alrighty. Bad union! Naughty union! Your crimes are almost a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of a percentage as bad as the corporate overlords. But, hey, ND30 is right, that union was really really naughty. Slap them on the wrist and move onto the real criminals at the top of the thread, kk?

  98. 98.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 1:54 am

    You forgot that he apparently buys into the delusion that giving up any chance at fair compensation for his labor, affordable health care, or a decent living wage is going to make him rich someday.

    It’s already done quite well, thank you. I make fair compensation for my labor, I have affordable health care, and I make quite beyond a mere living wage, with more than enough to put into savings.

    Wonder how I managed that without union representation? Couldn’t have anything to do with actually getting an education and doing a good job, could it?

  99. 99.

    D-Chance.

    January 28, 2009 at 1:55 am

    Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout stimulus funds,

    Fixed.

    Another trillion, please, kind Sir.

  100. 100.

    Josh E.

    January 28, 2009 at 1:58 am

    Yup.

    Interesting. So when you read about a murder conviction in your local paper, do you conclude that society turns a blind eye to murder?

    Which brings up the excellent question of why one should remove one of the primary safeguards against retaliation—the secret ballot.

    Uh, except the secret ballot has absolutely nothing to do with leaking to the media. Did you even read the story you linked? The purpose of the EFCA, of course, is to prevent employers from union-busting in the period between when the initial card check occurs and the subsequent election.

    Problem is, you aren’t concluding that; you’re merely trying to make excuses for why you tolerate retaliation by unions.

    I don’t tolerate retaliation by unions. What on earth are you talking about? I’m just trying to figure out how many examples of misconduct by a certain type of institution you require before concluding that all institutions of that type are bad and should be abolished.

  101. 101.

    Sleeper

    January 28, 2009 at 2:00 am

    Question: do you feel the same way about Michelle Obama, and that her salary is "extravagantly undeserved" (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html)? Or Caroline Kennedy? Or John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry? Or Nancy Pelosi?

    (This is, what, topic #11 from him?)

    If any of these people were out screaming from the rafters that they’re being punished with too-high tax rates and that they need a break, then you might have a point. But it’s not, it’s jag-offs like Nissan Bob Corker, who never met a working man he didn’t punch in the throat. For the life of me, I will never understand why lower- and middle-class Republicans fight so fucking zealously to help rich people keep as much of their money as possible. It’s not as if the rich ever return the favor.

  102. 102.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:01 am

    Question: do you feel the same way about Michelle Obama, and that her salary is "extravagantly undeserved"?

    You do realize that a piddly $350,000 is nothing compared to what Paris Hilton earned last year, right?

    Or how about the $102,840,000 that Angelo Mozilo received in return for running Countrywide into the ground?

    But, yes, we should all be shocked and concerned that Michelle Obama earned $350,000 at her job because people like Hilton and Mozilo earn every penny of their multi-million (not multi-hundred-thousand, but multi-million) dollar salaries. After all, if Countrywide hadn’t paid Mozilo $102.8 million to tank the worldwide economy, who would have done it?

    By contrast, the CEO of Lehman Bros. only earned a measly $71.9 million last year. That must be why the oldest bank in the United States failed — because their CEO was so severely underpaid.

    You know what’s even more shocking? They paid Nancy Pelosi a whole $223,900 last year, and she didn’t even bankrupt a company! How can they justify a massive salary like that when she’s clearly not in the same league as brilliant financial geniuses like Mozilo and Fuld?

  103. 103.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:01 am

    @North Dallas Thirty:

    Wonder how I managed that without union representation? Couldn’t have anything to do with actually getting an education and doing a good job, could it?

    um, maybe just maybe it had to do with the secure and prosperous society you grew up in? You know, the one put in place by the social programs of the New Deal?

  104. 104.

    mak

    January 28, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Back to the topic at hand, the proto-dbag Marcus of Home Depot is among those who not only kill local hardware stores, but also fleece localities of local taxes while doing so, courtesy of your locally elected republican officials. As related by David Cay Johnston in, I believe, "Free Lunch," Marcus and friends make deals with states and localities that allow tax abatements for a period of years. They don’t stop charging sales taxes, mind you, they just don’t have to remit them to the taxing authority. Instead, they keep ’em, killing the local tax-paying businesses they displace, and then as often as not pull up stakes and relocate across the street or across town once the sweetheart deal expires. To anyone who watches King of the Hill, this is not news.

    Point is, we really need to avoid patronizing these establishments, and I for one am committed to doing so. This sucks, of course, since a generation later there is no local competition in most places, and DIYers like myself have to waste much precious petrol to find a local alternative. But it’s worth it.

  105. 105.

    JenJen

    January 28, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Nothing, really…. just enjoying the rock-’em-sock-’em provided by John and Doug against ol’ North Dallas Thirty The Plumber.

    What, did unions steal his girlfriend and give him an old-fashioned ass-kickin’ in the class president election back in high school, or is this one of those slobbering Rand homages? Good Gawd. Somewhere, Americablog sits lonely, missing its troll…

  106. 106.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:04 am

    Interesting. So when you read about a murder conviction in your local paper, do you conclude that society turns a blind eye to murder?

    A conviction would indicate they’re doing nothing of the sort.

    The purpose of the EFCA, of course, is to prevent employers from union-busting in the period between when the initial card check occurs and the subsequent election.

    Ah yes, "union-busting" — which is union speak for sharing facts with employees about what life under a union is like.

    And before we start screaming about companies, there are already laws that explicitly prohibit threatening, interrogating, promising, or spying on their employees during the organizing period; it’s called an unfair labor practice.

  107. 107.

    TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)

    January 28, 2009 at 2:07 am

    North Dallas Thirty
    Question: do you feel the same way about Michelle Obama, and that her salary is "extravagantly undeserved" (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html)? Or Caroline Kennedy? Or John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry? Or Nancy Pelosi?

    No need to answer you, dude, since you never bother to offer any support for your allegations.

    Consider yourself penalized 15 yards. From now on you’re "North Dallas Fifteen".

    I think it’s about 4th and 45 for you now. Maybe you should just punt and then try to keep the score down, ’cause you sure as hell ain’t winning.

  108. 108.

    D0n Camillo

    January 28, 2009 at 2:07 am

    Who is the North Dallas Thirty individual and why does he love pie so much?

  109. 109.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:11 am

    And before we start screaming about companies, there are already laws that explicitly prohibit threatening, interrogating, promising, or spying on their employees during the organizing period; it’s called an unfair labor practice.

    That’s great, I honestly laughed out loud at that. The naiveté to believe that those laws are enforced regularly. Or at all. Or that for the last 8 years those have been any barrier at all… Oh, that’s just too funny. hehehe Good one, ND30

  110. 110.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:11 am

    If any of these people were out screaming from the rafters that they’re being punished with too-high tax rates and that they need a break, then you might have a point.

    They’re just not paying them (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23647.html), or getting goodies from Angelo Mozilo (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal).

  111. 111.

    Lesley

    January 28, 2009 at 2:12 am

    Even if it’s not true – though the likelihood of it being true is high – these people are diabolically sick.

    Wasn’t it AIG that threw a $400,000 party after the first bailout?

    The CEOs that benefited from the first bailout spent 10% of the $700-billion paying themselves bonuses.

    The message hasn’t hit home. Time for them to experience some long term unemployment accompanied by a bad reference, and an order to pay back the funds they stole and abused.

  112. 112.

    Cain

    January 28, 2009 at 2:13 am

    WD30 seems can’t still and argue any one point he keeps bringing up new ones as one dies a new one is born.

    You’re a putz, dude. We’re going to eat you for lunch. We’ll hold you off till the morning crew comes in for the next wave of ridicule. Let us know when you’ve had enough abuse.

    cain

  113. 113.

    scarshapedstar

    January 28, 2009 at 2:15 am

    Shorter ND30:

    I am deliberately obtuse, as this chart will demonstrate.

    In fact, I am so obtuse that I am pretending that the EFCA has a clause outlawing the secret ballot. This may be because I wear special X-ray glasses, or it may be because I’m full of it.

  114. 114.

    TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)

    January 28, 2009 at 2:16 am

    It’s already done quite well, thank you. I make fair compensation for my labor, I have affordable health care, and I make quite beyond a mere living wage, with more than enough to put into savings.
    Wonder how I managed that without union representation? Couldn’t have anything to do with actually getting an education and doing a good job, could it?

    Ya gotta love the smug. And who among is not moved by his humble pride at having reached such an elevated station in life all on his very own…ya know, by the sweat of his brow, with his very own two cheetos-stained hands?

    Atlas Smugged.

  115. 115.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:16 am

    The naievete to believe that those laws are enforced regularly. Or at all. Or that for the last 8 years those have been any barrier at all

    Read and learn (http://www.cwa-union.org/news/cwa-news/page.jsp?itemID=27370538).

  116. 116.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:17 am

    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..9525.story

    Yes, clearly the SEIU is corrupt from top to bottom, as exemplified in this quote from the LA Times:

    [SEIU President Andy] Stern has not been implicated in any wrongdoing, and many say he has moved forcefully to address the allegations of corruption in the union’s biggest California chapter and internal complaints of financial impropriety at a second Los Angeles local.

    Wow, with coverage like that, I’m surprised there are any unions left at all, what with all of the addressing allegations of corruption and punishing the guilty by the union’s president. You sure proved your claim that the entire SEIU is corrupt from top to bottom with that.

    Fortunately, all of the CEOs in America are squeaky clean and would never steal money from their companies. Just doesn’t happen. Clearly, the problem is unions, not corruption — Ken Lay must have been driven to his crimes by union malfeasance.

  117. 117.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:22 am

    I am deliberately obtuse, as this chart will demonstrate.

    I do so love when they try posting propaganda studies commissioned by the unions proper that whine about how "unfair" it is that, for instance, union members are not allowed to solicit workers for the eight or so hours they are at work and have to do so in the other sixteen hours of the day.

    Oh, and as far as the EFCA, right now, a secret ballot is required. The unions want this requirement eliminated because they don’t want any portion of the process outside their capability to coerce and retaliate.

  118. 118.

    Sleeper

    January 28, 2009 at 2:25 am

    Wonder how I managed that without union representation?

    But you didn’t, see. Because the very unions you disdain spent the end of the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries extracting workers’ rights out of employers through political persuasion, activism, and striking, suffering lock-outs and beatings and the occasional machine-gunning in the process. Unionism and leftism fought and won the hard battles and made workplaces safe across America, whether the shops were union or not. A tide of rising expectations lifted every worker’s boat. So do us all a favor and spare us your mealy-mouthed Horatio Alger sweat-of-your-brow bullshit.

    Couldn’t have anything to do with actually getting an education and doing a good job, could it?

    Talking out of your ass. So simple, even a caveman can do it. As someone noted earlier in this thread, workplaces with well-compensated employees, who make a good living and enjoy benefits, aren’t going to feel much of a need to resort to collective bargaining to get what they need. So you’re happy in your job, fine. Don’t worry about unions, it sounds like your workplace doesn’t need one. But workers who aren’t so happy have the right to unify to protect themselves, and people who’d like to abolish or undercut that right because they got theirs and fuck the lot of you all, should probably shut the fuck up.

  119. 119.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:29 am

    Oh, and as far as the EFCA, right now, a secret ballot is required. The unions want this requirement eliminated because they don’t want any portion of the process outside their capability to coerce and retaliate.

    So tell us, ND30, what year was card check disallowed by the NLRB? You do know that it was a recognized way of forming a union for decades until a specific decision, right?

  120. 120.

    JenJen

    January 28, 2009 at 2:31 am

    NDT, you’ve been at this for hours now. If you keep up with this insomniac wingnuttery, you’re going to be late for your toll booth assistant supervisor shift in the morning. Kinda wishin’ you had a clock-in buddy now, aren’t you?

  121. 121.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:31 am

    @North Dallas Thirty:

    Ok, I read the linked page. Honestly, it seemed really tangential to your point. All it indicated was that in one instance, there is one company being looked at by the NLRB. This is proof of a substantial barrier how? It wasn’t a link to a substantial Sprint loss that changed the way they did business. It wasn’t a link to other companies somehow learning to fear the NLRB. Um, was that all you had?

    Good luck with the regulars.

  122. 122.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:37 am

    So do us all a favor and spare us your mealy-mouthed Horatio Alger sweat-of-your-brow bullshit.

    I should have known the Obama Party and Barack Obama himself were lying when they talked about the necessity for hard work and success. We should all remember that nobody gets ahead by working and that it’s pointless to do so.

    But workers who aren’t so happy have the right to unify to protect themselves, and people who’d like to abolish or undercut that right because they got theirs and fuck the lot of you all, should probably shut the fuck up.

    You mean, so that you and your fellow union bosses and thugs can keep your rich lifestyles going off their dues (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-union5-2008sep05,0,7889525.story).

    The reason we have the secret ballot in union certification elections is precisely to protect against that sort of retaliation. If you cared about workers, you wouldn’t be trying to strip away and eliminate one of the key things that protects them from threats and intimidation by corrupt union bosses.

  123. 123.

    BethanyAnne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:43 am

    We should all remember that nobody gets ahead by working and that it’s pointless to do so.

    Hard work is necessary but not sufficient.

  124. 124.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:44 am

    1966, Aaron Brothers.

    Know why that happened? Because unions were coercing and retaliating against employees who refused to sign cards.

    The problem here is that unions and union thugs like yourself don’t want to have employees to have any other option other than to sign or be retaliated against.

    Furthermore, what you would realize if you were actually informed on matters is that you don’t "form a union". The union is formed; the election is for recognition of the union as the bargaining representative of the employees.

  125. 125.

    Trolhattan

    January 28, 2009 at 2:44 am

    @JenJen #135,

    That’s some solid win, there.

    John, can you please put a cigarette out on this new NDT tick? S/He’s sufficiently engorged, and insufficiently interesting. Let’s kick it over to teh Sadlys for further mocking.

  126. 126.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:46 am

    If you keep up with this insomniac wingnuttery, you’re going to be late for your toll booth assistant supervisor shift in the morning.

    I do so love it when "progressives" and liberals show disdain for people who work. Why is it an insult to them to say, looking down their nose, that one is a "toll booth assistant supervisor"?

  127. 127.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:47 am

    You mean, so that you and your fellow union bosses and thugs can keep your rich lifestyles going off their due

    Yeah, only CEOs should be allowed to keep their rich lifestyles going using taxpayer money! Duh.

    You know, ND30, if you wanted to throw AIG a $400,000 party using your money because they just gosh-darned deserved it, you could have given the money to them directly instead of making all the rest of us taxpayers go in on it with you.

  128. 128.

    JenJen

    January 28, 2009 at 2:49 am

    @North Dallas Thirty:

    I do so love it when "progressives" and liberals show disdain for people who work. Why is it an insult to them to say, looking down their nose, that one is a "toll both (sic!) assistant supervisor"?

    Because it’s called "making fun of you" and it plays into your stereotype, and gets your knickers in a twist. I was eating argula while I typed that. Bugger!! I just knocked over my effete latte!

    See how that works? You’re no fun at all.

  129. 129.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:51 am

    You know, ND30, if you wanted to throw AIG a $400,000 party using your money because they just gosh-darned deserved it, you could have given the money to them directly instead of making all the rest of us taxpayers go in on it with you.

    Problem is, I didn’t want to do that. In fact, I spoke out rather strongly against the bailout.

    But how about we try this? Since you and your fellow Obama Party members want to redistribute income, let’s just pass a law that says that anyone who’s a registered Obama Party member pays a 100% tax on any income and assets over $100k, with the proceeds to be redistributed to other Obama Party members so that everyone is making $100k.

  130. 130.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 2:52 am

    Know why that happened? Because unions were coercing and retaliating against employees who refused to sign cards.

    Is your response to a crime always to try and punish the victim? By your lights, if someone commits credit card fraud, the only possible solution is that we shut down all of the credit card companies, because if they can be used to commit crimes, clearly they shouldn’t be allowed to operate at all.

    What other organizations should be completely dissolved because some corrupt people exploit them? Maybe the US Senate should be dissolved because Duke Cunningham used his position to obtain bribes. After all, there’s no way to be sure that no other Senator will ever accept a bribe again, so the only way to prevent bribery is to dismantle the Senate entirely.

  131. 131.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 2:57 am

    Is your response to a crime always to try and punish the victim?

    Why, exactly, is a secret-ballot election that protects against coercion and retaliation by allowing a person to vote without fear of their exact vote being discovered a "punishment", especially when doing so would avoid the problem of said crime?

  132. 132.

    Sleeper

    January 28, 2009 at 2:59 am

    We should all remember that nobody gets ahead by working and that it’s pointless to do so.

    No, you should remember that you owe much of your prosperity as a citizen of a relatively enlightened industrialized nation to the hard work and success of labor activists, who ended child labor, company scrip, fought for pensions and health care and pulled countless millions of impoverished workers out of virtual serfdom. You were born on third base and act as if you hit a triple.

    You mean, so that you and your fellow union bosses and thugs can keep your rich lifestyles going off their dues

    uh. What? I’m a union boss now?

    You act as if leftists support union corruption or don’t see it. Of course there’s been union corruption in the past and present and there will be corrupt unions in the future. As there will be corrupt corporations, legislatures, churches, and local bowling leagues. Corruption anywhere can’t be tolerated. But corruption doesn’t condemn all labor activism everywhere, just as discovering a governor tried to sell off a Senate seat doesn’t mean that Illinois is a failed institution and the state ought to cede its civil authority and declare mob rule. If we’re going by that rule, corporate malfeasance and corruption outpaces union corruption exponentially. That doesn’t mean corporations should be abolished and verboten, it means that lawbreakers are punished. And so it is for unions. Christ. Don’t be so fucking dense.

  133. 133.

    bago

    January 28, 2009 at 2:59 am

    You mean, so that you and your fellow union bosses and thugs can keep your rich lifestyles going off their dues

    You mean, so that you and your corporate overlords can enjoy 350 foot long yachts and 50 million dollar planes off of our taxes?

    Assume a Union boss makes 250k entirely off of graft.

    Do you know what 25,000,000,000 / 250,000 is?

    10 thousand. As a percentage, it is 00.001 %

    My maths. Let me show you them.

  134. 134.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 3:02 am

    Since you and your fellow Obama Party members want to redistribute income, let’s just pass a law that says that anyone who’s a registered Obama Party member pays a 100% tax on any income and assets over $100k, with the proceeds to be redistributed to other Obama Party members so that everyone is making $100k.

    Here’s a better idea: let’s have the guys who make $100 million pay an 80 percent tax — that’s better than they did under FDR when they had a 95 percent tax. I mean, sure, it only leaves them a measly $20 million to live on for the entire year, but I’m sure if they tighten their bootstraps, they can somehow get by. Maybe they can take up begging for spare change or mowing lawns so they can somehow make ends meet on that tiny salary of $20 million a year. I’m sure you’ll be willing to drop a quarter in Larry Ellison’s cup to help him pay the rent, right?

    Oh, wait, that’s right — you have no interest in living in the real world. Sorry, I’ll let you return to your fantasyland where the richest men in the country are barely getting by on $100K a year and all us meanie Demoncrats want to even take that from them.

  135. 135.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Why, exactly, is a secret-ballot election that protects against coercion and retaliation by allowing a person to vote without fear of their exact vote being discovered a "punishment", especially when doing so would avoid the problem of said crime?

    Dissolving credit card companies would avoid the problem of credit fraud, and yet the fact that some people use them for crime doesn’t seem to bother you, while the fact that some people use unions for crime makes you scream for them to be dissolved.

    And a "secret-ballot election" only protects against coercion and retaliation by the union. The company can coerce and retaliate all they like in the lead-up to the election.

    It’s like you’re frothing mad at the credit card fraud that Visa facilitates but you give American Express a free pass to do whatever they want.

  136. 136.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 3:09 am

    You were born on third base and act as if you hit a triple.

    Right. My hard work, my education, my choices, have nothing to do with my position in life; it’s all thanks to the union massas, without whom I would be utterly and completely helpless.


    Corruption anywhere can’t be tolerated.

    Except, of course, when it’s union bosses, since they’re only stealing a little bit, right?

    Do you know what 25,000,000,000 / 250,000 is?

    10 thousand. As a percentage, it is .001 %

  137. 137.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 3:10 am

    But corruption doesn’t condemn all labor activism everywhere, just as discovering a governor tried to sell off a Senate seat doesn’t mean that Illinois is a failed institution and the state ought to cede its civil authority and declare mob rule.

    Actually, Blago’s corruption proves that all state governors are corrupt, so all states should be dissolved and mob rule declared for all 350 million Americans.

    After all, by dissolving state governments, we would avoid the problem of corrupt politicians. Right, ND30?

  138. 138.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 3:13 am

    And a "secret-ballot election" only protects against coercion and retaliation by the union. The company can coerce and retaliate all they like in the lead-up to the election.

    LOL….you do realize, of course, that the company doesn’t get access to the ballots either, don’t you?

    Furthermore, there are specific laws that forbid coercion and retaliation against employees for unionizing, and they are enforced. The problem is that the union can’t compete on the facts, so they want the process to be weighted against the employer and to allow them to coerce and retaliate against the employees themselves.

    Again, for you, it’s not about protecting the workers, since a secret ballot hides their vote from BOTH the union and the employer. It’s about the fact that the union thugs are desperate for new heads and want to eliminate any rights of the employer and the employee in the process in favor of getting more money for themselves.

    And, since the Obama Party is desperate for union contributions and payola, it’s a win-win situation; they force people into unions, they make it easy for unions to retaliate against employees, they get more money.

  139. 139.

    Tattoosydney

    January 28, 2009 at 3:14 am

    Bloody hell… there’s wingnut all over the thread…

    Given that, I’m going to go right OT and quote this epic stupidity (with thanks to the Sadly’s for the link)…

    Nathan Tabor is teh stoopid. The article is so dumb, it’s hard to work out which bit to quote, but I did like the utter lack of logical thought in this paragraph:

    But blacks are not the only minority group which could suffer under the Democratic regime in Washington. Democratic leaders believe that children must be taught evolution, and they cringe at the common-sense notion of intelligent design. The evolutionary theory promoted by Charles Darwin teaches survival of the fittest. That would place homosexuals at the bottom of the chain, since they cannot procreate. Under evolution, they are destined to die out, forced out of existence by the heterosexuals who can procreate.

    So… if I have this right, teaching about evolution will mean that there will be no more gays. What a conundrum for the wingnuts.

  140. 140.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 3:14 am

    After all, by dissolving state governments, we would avoid the problem of corrupt politicians. Right, ND30?

    I fail to see your line of reasoning here. Where have I called for the dissolving of unions?

  141. 141.

    scarshapedstar

    January 28, 2009 at 3:19 am

    LOL….you do realize, of course, that the company doesn’t get access to the ballots either, don’t you?

    If you think that no company has ever retaliated against union supporters before a vote, you are either lying or… okay, no adult is that dumb. You’re being deliberately obtuse. Again.

    Matter of fact, the way you tell it, what with the secret ballot, no company has ever been able to retaliate against any employee at any time. Thumbs up their asses! Right.

    since the Obama Party is desperate for union contributions and payola

    Yeah. That’s why the Democrats have been such reliable union supporters these last 16 years. And Obama had to run a shoestring campaign against McCain’s tidal wave of grassroots money. If he doesn’t get those union bucks, he’s toast; there’s no way in hell that anyone will give him a dime in 2012! Just like nobody did in 2008! Except for the unions!

    Christ on a crutch. Beat the FEAR 2 demo, now it’s time to go to sleep. Happy trolling.

  142. 142.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 3:23 am

    If you think that no company has ever retaliated against employees before a union vote, you are either lying or… okay, no adult is that dumb. You’re being deliberately obtuse. Again.

    I think that very stupid companies have done it — mainly because I’m aware that unfair labor practice charges were filed, the NLRB investigated, and the companies that did it were fined and punished severely, including being forced to recognize the union right away.

    But what’s funny is this; I post clear examples of unions retaliating against and attacking people, but you deny it ever happens.

  143. 143.

    Sleeper

    January 28, 2009 at 3:29 am

    You were born on third base and act as if you hit a triple.
    Right. My hard work, my education, my choices, have nothing to do with my position in life; it’s all thanks to the union massas, without whom I would be utterly and completely helpless.

    Wow. Such manly grit. It’s no wonder that you’ve made Rearden Steel the industry leader it is today. The point, which you’re deliberately missing, is that a century or so of dedicated leftist labor activism have made this a country where it’s a hell of a lot easier for someone who comes from nothing to earn a living wage and support a family, where children don’t have to go to work at age ten to help feed the family, where workers don’t work twelve hour shifts seven days a week and get tossed out on their ass if they get sick or lose a limb to a sawblade or an engine lathe, where they have their rights guaranteed by force of law. That didn’t come out of the ether, that was demanded and seized by workers and passed on to their children and grandchildren, some of whom are too dumb to be grateful.

    Corruption anywhere can’t be tolerated.
    Except, of course, when it’s union bosses, since they’re only stealing a little bit, right?

    Wrong. Corruption anywhere can’t be tolerated, full-stop. Put some effort into this. If I say A, you can’t argue that I didn’t say A, especially when you quote me saying A.

  144. 144.

    North Dallas Thirty

    January 28, 2009 at 3:42 am

    That didn’t come out of the ether, that was demanded and seized by workers and passed on to their children and grandchildren, some of whom are too dumb to be grateful.

    Or better yet are questioning why those workers suddenly make it a "right" to get paid for work they didn’t do and a "right" to steal money from union dues to fund lavish lifestyles for union leaders.

    You haven’t stopped exploiting workers. You’ve just figured out a better and more efficient way to do it; tell them they’re scum, tell them they’re "ungrateful" for questioning unions, and then pay off the Obama Party to let you steal from them, coerce them, and retaliate against them without any recourse on their part.

    If I say A, you can’t argue that I didn’t say A, especially when you quote me saying A.

    No, but I can argue that you didn’t mean A, given that you don’t seem to have any problem with your fellow union supporters trying to minimize union corruption, and that’s exactly what I did.

  145. 145.

    Chuck Butcher

    January 28, 2009 at 3:52 am

    My grandfather went to his grave with a strike breaker’s bullet in his leg so assholes like this movie fan could have what he has. He’s got a burr up his ass about a couple corrupt union officials and wants to tell us about work. I’d like to put his pussy self on one of my sites for a week and let him learn about fucking work, at about 20F with big powerful power tools in the fucking snow well above ground level ripped and torn by equipment into frozen dragon teeth. And all the while watch as his supposedly educated ass can’t follow instructions and get the job done right because he knows better.

    I’d have to fire his ass or my crew would quit because I was paying him – anything. You can bet that the only reason this twit has any idea what 1 1/2" looks like is because it’s his dick which he hasn’t see for years past the Cheeto belly. I’d argue with him, but there’s no point. He’s not arguing he’s trying to stir the ant’s nest.

    If you fuck as good as you argue you must be the most virginal gay to ever grace these pages, because buddy you suck and not in a good way, like as in eggs.

    I could reach back into 20 years of education for some polished rhetoric for you, but given your level attainment plain old construction site talk will do. The flat simple piece of this is that you’ve read no history and have no idea where your office job would leave you without the force of unionism. Your paper pushing job pays you anything at all because the unions pushed the scale up. fuckwit.

    You have absolutely no idea what games employers play and how roughly they play to keep unions out because you’re no part of that world. I’m a fucking left wing Democrat and I’ll match my balls, my work ethic, and my dedication to quality to anything you can bring to the plate, motherfucker. You’ve read way too much rightwing propaganda if you don’t realize what a rough tough bunch of sonsofbitches reside in leftie land.

  146. 146.

    bago

    January 28, 2009 at 3:55 am

    Do you know what 25,000,000,000 / 250,000 is?
    10 thousand. As a percentage, it is .001 %

    Very good, you’ve learned the copy-paste technique. Now, do you have any idea why I chose the value of 25 billion? Cmon now, take a guess.

    No cheating.

  147. 147.

    Chuck Butcher

    January 28, 2009 at 3:56 am

    oooh, moderation, I’ve hit the big time…

  148. 148.

    JenJen

    January 28, 2009 at 3:57 am

    @North Dallas Thirty:

    Just out of curiosity… back in high school, did a labor union steal your girlfriend, pour a milkshake over your head, refuse to invite you to all the cool parties, and beat your ass in the Student Council election or something? You’re sounding so John-Hughes-distraught now that I can only guess it’s something painfully personal to you.

    At the same time, I do watch in wide-eyed wonderment at exactly what it takes to piss wingnuts off. After eight years, it’s nice to finally get that answer from my Magic 8 Ball.

    Good gawd, man. Get some sleep.

  149. 149.

    TenguPhule

    January 28, 2009 at 4:46 am

    Unions make everything less efficient, and drive work out of the country.

    Not Unionizing makes everyone poorer and drives work out of the country.

  150. 150.

    TenguPhule

    January 28, 2009 at 4:47 am

    Contribute something to the economy instead of demanding that the successful be punished.

    You mean those people who made hundreds of millions and lost their companies tens of billions?

    I’m sorry, what definition of successful are you using here?

  151. 151.

    Napoleon

    January 28, 2009 at 5:06 am

    The only benefit, if you want to call it that, to the last 8 years of lawlessness and the current economic crisis is that it has laid bare the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the media and business elite in this country for everyone that some of us have lone realized existed.

  152. 152.

    DanJoaquinOz

    January 28, 2009 at 5:36 am

    Wow. 35 monomaniacal, off-topic, tendentious posts out of 140 from the same guy! That’s just incredibly weird and desperately sad, especially when they start at 11:38pm and end at 3:42am. He’s like that boring, overbearing drunk (or cokehead) at a party who argues the same crashingly dull point with everyone, convincing none, alienating all within his vicinity, including those who might once have agreed with him. It’s such a triumph of anti-charm that it’s tempting to suspect he might be a parody-troll, secretly advocating unionism.

    And for anyone inclined, or even able, to forget the godawful years of chest-thumpingly triumphalist, bone-headedly incompetent, arrogantly idiotic Bush Republican rule, he serves as a timely and perfect reminder.

    For your services to liberalism, NorthDallasThirty, I salute you.

  153. 153.

    Xenos

    January 28, 2009 at 5:54 am

    Morning shift punching in here… gotta get my Obama points here at Hoffa Industries…

    Oh man, you are not going to leave that mess for me to clean up, are you? Ew! This crap is not in my job description! I am so calling the steward about this.

  154. 154.

    Ash Can

    January 28, 2009 at 6:17 am

    OK, I’ve looked over this whole thread and all I can do is shake my head at our new troll/spoof’s heap of fail. Bob, weave, red herring here, bait-and-switch there…Holy obfuscation, Batman. And by the truckload, yet. I’m reminded of my then-boyfriend’s (now husband’s; he pretty much wised up and got over it) Reason magazines from years ago. Nearly every article involved the writer setting up the most egregious strawman he/she could think of, knocking the thing down, then cheering his/her own cleverness and skill. (The ones that didn’t do this and actually made a coherent point stood out, in their rarity, like John’s now-proverbial whale in the salad bowl.) As a poli sci student in DC (including during a couple of the Reagan years) I’d seen some inane bullshit in my day, but the extent of this magazine’s vapidness (lost on its subscribers due to the prettiness of its individual words) boggled me. And so it is with WD30 up there. If he’s (she’s?) a spoof, it’s masterful, and I’ll surely allow myself to be suckered in now and then. If he’s honestly a troll, though, wow. What a sorry mess.

  155. 155.

    John S.

    January 28, 2009 at 7:22 am

    The new troll is the same as the old troll…

    I know the claim had been made before, bit this smug wingnut asshole smells like the return of DARRELL.

    As I recall, Darrell lived in North Dallas, was a contractor with his own business and was around my age (30). The constant subject-changing, the barrage of ‘leftist’ jargon, the masturbatory Randian bullshit – all Darrell.

    The timing makes sense, too. Darrell vanished when it became too difficult to make excuses for Bush or blame Democrats for America’s ills. Now that he – like his fellow GOP ilk – smell blood in the water, they are cheering for America’s demise so they can return to power. And so he returns with his new bullshit, same as the old bullshit.

    Welcome back, ND30 Darrell, you miserable piece of shit.

  156. 156.

    Napoleon

    January 28, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Related to my comment at 147, I am reading the roundtable over at The American Prospect regarding Dean Baker’s new book
    Plunder and Blunder,
    and this quote stood out from one of the participants, economist Josh Bivens:

    "It’s becoming harder and harder for me to avoid an awfully reductionist conclusion: A problem is only a problem when rich people may get hurt, and solutions are only viable when rich people are not inconvenienced by them. . . . .

    To my inner economist, this analysis sounds like something I should be distributing by hand at my local subway station. But, the past year has been awfully radicalizing. "

  157. 157.

    Xenos

    January 28, 2009 at 7:51 am

    I think you may be on to something, John S. It has been a good three years since the great circulating connubium of conservatarian nonsense that was Darrell’s arguing style has blessed this site, but this tautological clusterfuck of thought from ND30 is pretty familiar.

    A contractor? Can you imagine the horror of working for this guy, or having him remodel your home?

  158. 158.

    DougJ

    January 28, 2009 at 8:23 am

    @NDT:

    At least embed your links if you want to be taken seriously.

  159. 159.

    J Royce

    January 28, 2009 at 8:44 am

    I’m sorry to have missed the discussion here. Since it is clear we have stepped into a fight with the Right, it may help to read about fascism in the early 20th Century that led to WWII and realize these Cons are just a resurrection of would-be Blackshirts and what have you.

    They hate unions, they hate minorities, they claim to love God and Country and Family and end up destroying everything. At the beginning it is all flags and Wagner in defense of Everything Good, at the end it is War, Rape, Plunder, and Pillage. Every time.

    There is no point in talking to these automatons of banality, they have what is called the "Wolf Virus" and many never can recover. John Cole is one of the few who escaped and coughed up the juice, but the ones you see still shilling for the Right are traitors to America, traitors to God, traitors to their fellow man, and traitors to their own souls. They literally have nothing to lose.

    Cole should have just banned the goon. These right-wing constructs don’t operate on a human level and cannot be "reasoned" with. They are blinded by their hubris and marked for doom.

    Liberalism is the only thing that has successfully defeated fascism, as well as Communism. That may seem like a sad truth to some, but it is the truth. To survive the onslaught we must unite the nation, with peace and good will to all, raise up the poor and offer something better than servitude to the Right, and humanity responds.

    It’s a good time to read about fascism and how this nation nearly fell to the Right in the run-up to WWII. We cleansed Europe of this bacillus but never addressed the problem in our own country.

  160. 160.

    Oliver's Neck

    January 28, 2009 at 8:59 am

    @Stevenovitch:
    Um, every connected upper-class-twit 22 year old who graduates with a comm/polisci/econ/business degree and then gets a job with his dad’s friend’s company. Like, say, my "friend" Greg – who also shares this cohorts’ interesting medical condition in that he forgets all the help and privilege and is completely sure he got that first job via merit, as well as all the subsequent promotions for being in the upper-class-twit club.

    Actually, I’m wrong. Those guys aren’t even semi-skilled. I apologize for wasting your time.

  161. 161.

    Michael D.

    January 28, 2009 at 9:07 am

    I’m not sure I understand the Employee Free Choice Act. Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that it will take away the right of employees to vote in a secret ballot in order to form a union and, instead, allow them simply to sign cards to show their support.

    It used to be that if 30% of the employees in a potential bargaining unit signed cards, then the secret ballot election would take place. It sound to me like the new process would mean the union would be formed if 50%+1 people signed cards.

    That’s the general idea I got from reading this. That’s a lot of pressure to put on someone who might not wish to be in a union. In my personal situation, my employer treats me very well. I don’t believe for a second that having a union would make my work conditions or pay better at all. But if 49% of the employees here wanted a union anyway (because, face it, most people think “union” automatically means better wages and benefits) I’d be under trememdous pressure to sign a card I did not want to sign or risk working in an environment that would probably be pretty hostile to me.

    Am I understanding this correctly? If not, please correct me because I don’t want to oppose something because I don’t understand it. But if I am understanding it correctly, then I oppose the Act, as well. I think it would be used as a way to bully people into signing cards. Isn’t a secret ballot the most fair way to indicate your support/opposition?

    If you were voting in an election for president, would you just sign your name on a piece of paper to indicate your support?

    Or would you insist on a secret ballot?

  162. 162.

    Marshall

    January 28, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Hey, I can remember when the top marginal tax rate was 90%, and the economy still seemed to function.

    Just saying…

  163. 163.

    ksmiami

    January 28, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Repeat after me: The Republican ideology has broken our country ad nauseum. The party is a cancer on the spirit and grit of this nation and care nothing about the people only power. They lie and lie and have the mainstream media in their back pocket like Mussolini and Franco. Given the right moment, they would not hesitate to take up arms against fellow citizens for being different like the southerners did under Jim Crow. Jonah Goldberg had the right idea, but wrong group for his book. Republicans have the fascistic hate mongering tendencies – see Sarah Palin’s whipped up masses tour…

    North Dallas guy – please stop listening to Rush…

  164. 164.

    Xenos

    January 28, 2009 at 9:38 am

    @Michael D.: I am no expert on the subject, but what you are saying sounds correct. I just can’t see the big issue.

    How much pressure is one person going to get when all the union needs is 50% plus one card signed?

    As a political issue, there is a lot more to the EFCA than the card check provision. So it could be that the card-check component is a sacrificial lamb, that can be killed while the rest of the bill passes into effect. Right now the secret ballots you are so sentimental about don’t count for much when employers can retaliate against workers who openly support unionization. Getting all the pro-union leaders canned before the election is not much of a fair election.

  165. 165.

    liberal

    January 28, 2009 at 9:39 am

    @J Royce:

    Liberalism is the only thing that has successfully defeated fascism, as well as Communism.

    From my handle, I’m a big fan of liberalism, but this isn’t really true.

    The vast majority of combat casualties inflicted on the Germans in WWII were by the Soviets, not the Western Allies. My own number was 5/6 (a quick calculation I came up with by perusing casualty figures on the web).

    Not that American and British soldiers didn’t do a good job, etc. But the main effort against the Germans was waged by the USSR.

  166. 166.

    Michael D.

    January 28, 2009 at 9:41 am

    For what it’s worth, I know North Dallas Thirty.

    The more you engage him, the more he won’t shut up. It got so bad, and he became so irritating that I actually had to ban him from my last site.

    He believes he is the last great gay Republican and he has to convert you all. It’s his mission.

    He is like Psoriasis – the more you scratch it, the worse it gets. So don’t talk to him if you don’t want to see him here. I know if he engages my because of this, I won’t respond.

    Eventually, he’ll realize he is wasting his time.

  167. 167.

    liberal

    January 28, 2009 at 9:41 am

    @Marshall:

    Hey, I can remember when the top marginal tax rate was 90%, and the economy still seemed to function.

    I’m a big fan of progressive taxation, but figures like that aren’t so meaningful, because
    (a) it leaves unstated where the bracket begins, and
    (b) it leaves unstated what counts towards taxable income.

  168. 168.

    Shygetz

    January 28, 2009 at 10:22 am

    But if 49% of the employees here wanted a union anyway (because, face it, most people think “union” automatically means better wages and benefits) I’d be under trememdous pressure to sign a card I did not want to sign or risk working in an environment that would probably be pretty hostile to me.

    Actually, it wouldn’t be that hostile to you because the pro-union people would know they were in the minority. So, if they decided to choose sides, they would be outnumbered.

    Also, if I read the bill correctly, employees can still call for a secret ballot. They can ALSO use card check to force a company to recognize a union. So, if you want secret ballot, convince your coworkers to push for a secret ballot.

    All of this would be unnecessary if not for the long and grand tradition of corporate union-busting that has and still goes on in this country. Stalling elections, firing organizers, and even more nefarious tactics. If there were a way to guarantee the rights of workers to vote by a valid secret ballot without interference by the employer, then I would support it. But I can’t think of one–the current laws are both ineffective and infrequently enforced.

  169. 169.

    Napoleon

    January 28, 2009 at 10:27 am

    The vast majority of combat casualties inflicted on the Germans in WWII were by the Soviets, not the Western Allies. My own number was 5/6 (a quick calculation I came up with by perusing casualty figures on the web).

    I have the break down somewhere, but I want to say it is even higher, something like 85%. The statistics I have seen when they give you how many divisions were on each front and how long each front were is even more lopsided. When you see the actual break down it becomes clear the western front was a pure sideshow to the Germans that never had a material impact on their loss in the war.

    But hey, American Exceptionalism rules here, so we have to ignore the plain fact that the Soviets would have done it without us.

  170. 170.

    canuckistani

    January 28, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Jeebus, there’s more pie here than I can stomach. Make him go away!

  171. 171.

    Glocksman

    January 28, 2009 at 10:41 am

    @Michael D.:

    I’m not sure I understand the Employee Free Choice Act. Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that it will take away the right of employees to vote in a secret ballot in order to form a union and, instead, allow them simply to sign cards to show their support.

    That’s not quite true.
    The EFCA provides for a secret ballot to be held if 30% of the workers ask for one even if 51% sign cards inviting a union in.

  172. 172.

    John PM

    January 28, 2009 at 10:48 am

    @Napoleon: #170.

    The Book "Barbarossa" is a fantastic overview of WWII in the East. However, I do not know if the Soviets would have been able to do it all themselves had the rest of the Allies not successfully landed in France. IIRC, the Soviets were calling for an invasion in the West in late-1942 or early 1943. As long as the Germans did not have to worry about the Allies in the West, they could keep throwing their best divisions against the Soviets in the East. Of course, we are fortunate that Germany decided to repeat the mistake of your namesake and invade the Soviet Union before knocking England out of the war.

  173. 173.

    Ash Can

    January 28, 2009 at 10:49 am

    @Michael D.: Like Shygetz above, I believe the card-sign provision in the EFCA is intended to prevent employers from jiggering with (and thus nullifying) the results of a union vote, although I’m not sure. In any event, though, the point someone made further upthread that contented people, working for an employer who plays fair, aren’t likely to want to unionize pretty much nails it. For the same token, if half of the people in your company are unhappy enough to want to go through the trouble of unionizing, as in your hypothetical situation, I’d be willing to bet that there are problems in your workplace much bigger than just the potential downside of unionizing.

  174. 174.

    gwangung

    January 28, 2009 at 10:50 am

    He believes he is the last great gay Republican and he has to convert you all. It’s his mission.

    He’d do better if he argued with facts instead of ideology.

  175. 175.

    John PM

    January 28, 2009 at 10:53 am

    Oh, BTW, John Cole is now a Communist Anarchist Socialist Atheist Un-American Rabble-Rouser!!! I believe that Stephen Colbert will be putting you on notice.

  176. 176.

    Napoleon

    January 28, 2009 at 11:10 am

    we are fortunate that Germany decided to repeat the mistake of your namesake

    Hey, I am not named after that Napoleon but this Napoleon.

    But still point take.

    Thunder in the East is a pretty good book on it as well.

    PS, don’t ever confuse me with Snowball or Old Major.

  177. 177.

    former capitalist

    January 28, 2009 at 11:20 am

    When I read some clown denounce unions as does Mr./Ms. NDd30 above, I think, man, this person should work in a non-union hog processing plant for just one day. Just one day. Guaranteed cure for asshole-itis.

  178. 178.

    Mnemosyne

    January 28, 2009 at 11:21 am

    I love the boot-licking trolls like ND30 who think their corporate masters can do no wrong. No, it must have been those evil, evil unions that drove Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay to their actions, because corporations are always on the side of what’s true and right and never, ever break the law.

  179. 179.

    Napoleon

    January 28, 2009 at 11:33 am

    @former capitalist:

    Not just a hog processing plant but in the job of "Bunger"

    (I use to work at a law firm that did work for a meat processor and another attorney one day mentions to me that she had a case involving an employee who had a job on the line with this title).

  180. 180.

    Trollhattan

    January 28, 2009 at 11:50 am

    @ Napolean

    "Bunger" is full of win. I’d do the job just for the business cards. There is (or was) a railroad job titled Hump Master–similarly inspiring.

    Did NDT finally leave for nappies?

  181. 181.

    Chris Johnson

    January 28, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Apparently.

    It’s always interesting to me to see the way people like that carry on- on the one hand they are trying to defend structural problems (not easy problems mind you, but they’re defending the worst scenarios) and on the other hand while they’ll claim logic, morality, what have you as arguments, they are actually trying to prevail on solely social behavior, akin to dominance fights among animals.

    It’s actually not that easy to reduce life down to simple principles you cling to- you get what we’re now experiencing, the catastrophic breakdown of the value system as it throws its environment out of whack.

    I’m picturing our ‘corporate masters’ using Blackwater to throw unions and troublemakers in those detention camps Halliburton built- not through the government, but as the shadow government they plainly are. I would have thought these people would cash out and flee the country but perhaps they like the idea of taking it as far as possible?

    The reason I’m a socialist leftwinger while running a SMALL business is that I wouldn’t have it if not for the American social safety net- and because those corrupt union SOBs are my potential customers. When you’re talking about defending people’s ‘right’ to earn multimillions of dollars, you’re really saying there is a benefit to the country in which this takes place, that they do things that spur the economy. I don’t see that anymore. The money goes out of the country or it’s hoarded, not spent. Might as well be taxed at 99% for all the good it’s doing.

    I’d rather see Joe Average (hell, even JoeThePlumber, he’s po’ ) getting the benefits of the injustices, because he’s going to be more likely to spend it locally.

  182. 182.

    reality-based

    January 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Hey, what happened to Bill Clinton’s Penis?

    Whenever fools like ND 3" run out of totally non-germane topics to switch to, they ALWAYS bring up Monica-gate.

    Seriously – wingnuts are totally obsessed with the Clinton equipment, and know that the use/misuse of same trumps all reasoned argument.

    What happened – did the fool run and hide/get banned by John before he could play the Clinton Penis trump card?

    Or – God,let it be true – the statues of limitations on illicit BJs is 10 years, and it’s expired now?!?!?!?!

    what will the poor wingnuts do?

  183. 183.

    Wile E. Quixote

    January 28, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    @North Dallas Retard

    Right. My hard work, my education, my choices, have nothing to do with my position in life; it’s all thanks to the union massas, without whom I would be utterly and completely helpless.

    Where did you get your education from? Public or private schools. If the answer to your question is not "private schools" please pay back the costs of your education, including interest.

    I find it interesting that you get so upset about some SEIU douchebags clocking each other out but have no problem with guys like Angelo Mozilo and John Thain ripping off billions. Why is that? Is it because those SEIU guys aren’t rich and white? Or is it because they didn’t steal enough?

    I would surely love to swindle you out of every penny you’ve ever "earned". I really don’t think that it would be all that hard to do, play upon your vanity and your sense that you’re one the elect who really understands how things work, take you out to lunch and regale you with stories about how union employees are raping the American economy and then tell you that I had a sure thing deal, that I would only share with guys like you who understood how things worked, that would allow you to shelter your wealth from the "Obama party" and I could have everything you own in two years, tops.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Ice Storms and Generally Cruddy Weather says:
    January 28, 2009 at 10:13 am

    […] still livid about the Bank of America nonsense from last night. I really don’t know what to do with these people. I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked or […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Yarrow on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 21, 2023 @ 10:50pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 10:45pm)
  • The Kropenhagen Interpretation on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 10:43pm)
  • Alison Rose on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 21, 2023 @ 10:41pm)
  • Adam L Silverman on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 21, 2023 @ 10:41pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!