How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What"s This Problem The Right WingWith U   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What"s This Problem The Right WingWith Unions?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


100 posted 03-13-2011 09:58 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No doubt, Ron, but the educated people behind the microphones report what they are told to report...period.

My experience has been otherwise, Mike. Quite the contrary, in fact. No matter their political persuasion, no matter their religion or ethnicity, journalists (and writers in general) are possibly the most stubborn people in the world. They don't just give lip service to the ideal of a Free Press, they actually believe it. A lot of them even seem to think it's important.

quote:
Obviously they feel it pays for them.

It may be obvious to you, Mike. Not to me.

Of course, I've never yet met a conspiracy theory that didn't think itself obvious. Nor have I ever met one that could survive the scrutiny of simple logic. The only ones out to get the Republicans are the Democrats. And that's their job.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


101 posted 03-13-2011 10:06 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The Party in power is the MSM's Party of choice. They are ideological kindred spirits. They will do all within their power to provide cover for that Party and will do all within their power to destroy the other Party even if it means making stuff up.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


102 posted 03-13-2011 10:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That was Uncas's "obvious", Ron. I happen to agree with it.

no matter their religion or ethnicity, journalists (and writers in general) are possibly the most stubborn people in the world.

They may be stubborn until their paycheck depends on it. I've never seen a journalist going against the wishes of the network and surviving. Right, Juan Williams?? They can be as stubborn as they want but they follow the company line.

You may refer to it as a conspiracy theory as you like. I refer to it as believing what my eyes see. Tea party posters are condemned. The same leftist posters are not mentioned. Palin mentioning "targeting" is given air time. Letters from leftists threatening to kill republicans are not. A tea-partier allegedly spitting at a democrat (not even validated) gets coverage. A leftist saying on camera that a supreme court justice and his family should be murdered barely gets a mention. A conspiracy, Ron? Only to people who refuse to open either their eyes or their minds to see what's there in front of them.

Fortunately, they are so blatant about it it has become obvious to many. If you claim to not be one, that's fine by me.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


103 posted 03-13-2011 11:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     The subject is Republican opacity to the usefulness of Unions, and to their right to exist.

     You can hear both parties grumbling about the way the media is ignoring the importance of their particular point of view.  The left does the same sort of complaining about the slant of the news, except we tend to attribute it to questions of who owns the news outlets, and the way so many board members of one corporation tend to sit of the boards of other corporations.

     My personal opinion is that media cannot help bias.  It's a function of the perception of reality.  News media for the most part, seems to have a bias that swings back and forth when the media discover that they've been foolish in saying something or doing something.  Then they attempt, clumsily for the most part, to show the other side.  It's a pretty human process.

     Partisan media try to present the views that they are supposed to present.  The Fox news people, for the most part, have been anti-union over the course of this Wisconsin business.  Most of these same Fox News People are apparently Union Members themselves.

     Pretty much, so what!  It's a partisan job, just like The Nation is.  A display of shock is at best idealistic, since one can hardly avoid realizing the rules by which this sort of thing works, and there have been no surprises that I can tell.  Ron seems to be pretty much on target here, for my money.

     And yes, overall I believe that the Right wing tends to talk more violently and to act more violently than the left wing these days.  In fact, the two positions even define violence differently.  The right wing includes waterboarding, stress positions, dog attacks, sexual assaults and suspension of civil rights among the behaviors that it does not consider as violent.  I have in fact had that discussion with some of the people in this thread now.  

     If the threats that were quoted were accurate, and I assume they were, then I condemn them, and I would assume most lefties would as well.  It's not that violence accomplishes nothing, as some folks have said foolishly, but that it lays the groundwork for violence to be returned and creates another problem in addition to the one it originally tried to solve.  Whoever made the threats Mike quoted was wrong to do so and helped shift the debate away from the issues at hand to something much more comfortable for the Wisconsin Republicans, their sense of victimization.

     But perhaps here we might try to stick with the issue of Unions if we can.  My hope, at least.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


104 posted 03-13-2011 11:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And yes, overall I believe that the Right wing tends to talk more violently and to act more violently than the left wing these days.

Why does that no surprise me, Bob? Tell you what..I'll make a list of violent left wing rhetoric lately and you make a list of right wing rhetoric and we'll compare. I'll start off with lefties calling for the murder of a supreme court justice, the Wisconsin letter threatening death to the republican  congressmen, and the senator who called for people to get out in the streets and get "bloody", (for which he had to publicly apologize.) Your turn....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


105 posted 03-13-2011 11:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as what's this problem the right wing with unions is concerned....what's this problem? You've given your opinions, given links of other lefties giving their opinions...and that's about it. I see very little factual to comment on.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


106 posted 03-14-2011 12:19 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
That was Uncas's "obvious", Ron. I happen to agree with it.

No, Mike, I directly quoted you. The context of your obvious was much different than the context of Uncas's. Using his word doesn't make it any less your word.

quote:
I've never seen a journalist going against the wishes of the network and surviving.

Depends on how you define "surviving," I guess. I've certainly never seen any of them get killed. Have you?

Every reputable journalist I've known, Mike, would quit before sacrificing their integrity. And then they'd go get another job at a venue they found less distasteful. Do you honestly think that the top people at ABC, CBS, et al couldn't find jobs at Fox if they wanted to? Those people are where they're at only because they don't WANT to work at Fox. Even the other journalists, the names you and I probably don't know, would have little trouble finding employment elsewhere. Good writers are gold.

I'm usually the cynic in these discussions, but this time I honestly don't think you're giving professionals enough credit, Mike. I don't believe the majority are the sheep you appear to take them for. Which takes us right back to my earlier point. If all those smart, educated, extremely well informed people really are leaning in a particular direction, maybe we should all take a closer look at where the wind is coming from?

Personally, I don't see any more leaning in one direction than the other. I'm just saying, though, if you're right . . .

quote:
Fortunately, they are so blatant about it it has become obvious to many. If you claim to not be one, that's fine by me.

Oh, I never said I didn't see the bias, Mike. I see it every day, but I see it on both sides of the fence, not just one. This whole thread, after all, is about the media's story on the Wisconsin Democrats, a story that certainly didn't put them in a favorable light. I look at the Google search I linked to earlier and see all kinds of media talking about the threats you claimed no one at all was talking about. I see it, Mike, and honestly I think I see it a lot more clearly than you do. I think you're only seeing what you've been told to look for.

Really, Mike, I know for a fact you're not being disingenuous, which leaves me at a complete loss to explain what you say you see. I feel like someone I trust is telling me the grass is pink with mauve stripes. I look and I look again, but the grass is still green (well, actually, it's a pretty ugly brown in March).

quote:
You may refer to it as a conspiracy theory as you like. I refer to it as believing what my eyes see.

LOL. And you don't think every theorist in the world hasn't said exactly the same thing, Mike? Or are you now saying it's NOT a conspiracy? That all these different media outlets are acting independently and yet the same? Seems that would take us right back to taking a closer look at where that wind is coming from.

quote:
Whoever made the threats Mike quoted was wrong to do so ...

I absolutely agree, Bob. Like you, I condemn any and all threats of violence. 'Course, in this case, we don't really know who made the threats, do we? We can only presume the AG will follow through with appropriate prosecutions should the threats be both substantiated and attributable. At which point the story will have a little more merit and likely not get shoved quite so far off the front page. Who knows, maybe WEAU news will be able to find it then.  


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


107 posted 03-14-2011 12:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

which leaves me at a complete loss to explain what you say you see.

Well, I've certainly spelled it out enough and. apparently, trying to continue doing it would make no difference.

You don't believe they are sheep, that's fine. I'm reminded of a Limbaugh post years ago. During election time, democrats brought up the word "gravitas", a word I'd never heard used on tv before. Within ONE day, every major network news agency used that word in their reporting,,,every one. Limbaugh recorded and played them. It lasted about thirty seconds. Station after station, reporter after reporter, even including Stephanapolis, worked it into their report. Quite the coincidence, no? It was as if the powers from above sent out a bulletin that the word of the day was gravitas and everyone got it used in their report...and ALL in one day. BAAAA!

I remember when cap and trade went for a vote in the senate. Let's face it...that bill would make a major difference in every Americsn's life, if passed. Guess what? Network media didn't even mention it! Didn't say that it was coming up for a vote or anything about it. That could not be considered a little strange?

I can look at a thousand situations where the coverage would have been completely different if it had involved republicans instead of democrats. If that makes me think it's a conspiracy, then so be it.

As grandma used to say, "I wouldn't be paranoid if everybody didn't hate me!"
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


108 posted 03-14-2011 01:42 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mike, I ventured my opinion, and I said why I held it.  That is, that the Right Wing doesn't even believe that things are violent and dangerous, if you take them at their word, until well after the Left has voiced discomfort.  Apparently the Right believes that torture in many of its internationally defined forms isn't violent at all.  

     The Left clearly is more sensitive to the issue, if only for that reason alone.  Violence seems to be within the acceptable range of political activity for The Right Wing, if our discussions on violence and torture are to be believed.

     I condemn the statements you quoted directed at the Republican Legislators in Wisconsin; though I do bear them some animus, death threats and threats of bodily harm are simply wrong.  People who voice them are, as far as I'm concerned, not operating rationally in a political sense.  They are making reference to other means, which are illegal and, politically, immoral.

     I believe that most left wing folks would agree with me, though I may have misjudged my friends.  

     In the case of the Right Wing, even potential office holders have mentioned "Second Amendment Solutions," and have done so without any censure that I recall from the Party as a whole, or even from large parts of it, or even from its leadership.  That's because it seems part of the Right Wing world View, and because a significant proportion of those on the Right appear to believe that this sort of solution has a real place in the political dialogue.

     There hasn't been that sort of vocal minority on the Left in this country for 30 or 40 years, and even then it was matched by rhetoric on the Right as well.

     That doesn't mean that it couldn't return, but I don't see it right now.
    
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


109 posted 03-14-2011 11:49 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm reminded of a Limbaugh post years ago. During election time, democrats brought up the word "gravitas", a word I'd never heard used on tv before. Within ONE day, every major network news agency used that word in their reporting,,,every one.

See, Mike, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You're simply repeating what you've been told you should see. If you trusted Limbaugh a little less you might have investigated his claims and discovered for yourself that he was wrong.

The word gravitas has always been a common enough one in political circles and came up very early in the 2000 elections because Bush, more than most candidates, very clearly lacked it. From the beginning, it was one of the more frequent charges laid at the feet of a Texas governor with no national experience.

In February, five months before Limbaugh's montage, the New York Times reported an unnamed Bush strategist as saying, "It's gotten to the point where the issue of Bush's gravitas and abilities as a candidate are the driving issues of the campaign." That wasn't the first time the word surfaced in the media (that honor likely goes to Chris Matthews, a month earlier) and it most certainly wasn't the last. You can find examples of gravitas reported in the media from every single month in 2000 leading up to Limbaugh's sudden discovery of the word in late July. In my opinion, it shouldn't have ever been an issue, but it was, so much so that the Washington Times dubbed it the Gravitas Gambit.

What happened "in one single day," Mike, was Bush announcing Dick Cheney as his running mate. And every single quotation in Limbaugh's montage was an observation that Cheney, as one of the most influential men in Washington, negated in one fell swoop all the earlier -- and frequent -- accusations that Bush lacked gravitas. Rush Limbaugh simply twisted everything to suit his own agenda.

It wasn't a conspiracy, Mike. It was a very clear cause and effect trail anyone could follow if they just chose to look.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


110 posted 03-14-2011 02:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's interesting, Ron. I'm going to check on that further and see what comes up.

Apparently the Right believes that torture in many of its internationally defined forms isn't violent at all.  

Well, Bob, you managed to leave me speechless with that one....not an easy task. Nicely done..

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


111 posted 03-14-2011 06:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Your statements about water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and enhanced interrogation such as were practiced in Iraq have returned.  You should be speechless; I was.  You minimized their significance energetically as I recall, as did other Right Wing Posters here.  Why else do Right Wing Folk call lefties "Bleeding Heart Liberals?"  Why else do Righties campaign so energetically for open gun ownership for as many people as the traffic can bear and for as many weapons as conscience will allow — and then some?

     These are Right Wing views that are part of the Right Wing view of the World, and suggesting they shouldn't be part of this discussion would assume blindness on my part.  I wear glasses, but even without glasses I can see that much.  It's the elephant in the room.

     If you don't want to talk about it, perhaps you could get back to a discussion of Unions and the Right wing?  It has the advantage of being the subject on the table, doesn't it?

     Being speechless does not account for any of the Republican Campaign rhetoric about "Second Amendment Solutions," nor the failure of the Republicans to distance themselves from that Rhetoric.  The Republicans were apparently speechless when it came to disowning the rhetoric of violence there, in a senatorial election.  

     I am willing to condemn the bozo who made that disgusting death threat.  He should confine his efforts to legitimate political means, and he should be charged and prosecuted by whatever laws apply.  I hope he's convicted as well.  I do believe that words can hurt people.

     A discussion of Free Speech might be an interesting parallel discussion, should anybody care to pursue it in another thread.  

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


112 posted 03-14-2011 07:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, from what I see, Limbaugh said nothing invalid. Of course, he put it together for his own political puffery but it was a fact that all of these people used the word the same day. If you want to say that was coincidence, or they used it because Matthews had introduced it a month before, ok, but to hear that many people use it at the same time seems a bit out of the ordinary to me. I mean, it's a word that probable 90% od the population don't even know what it is.  I know I've watched political campaigns for many years and I had never heard it used before and all of a sudden there is an avalanche of it by every network news announcer.

A good point was made this weekend. Obama spent his weekly radio address speaking of women's history month...exclusively. No talk of Japan, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, the budget battle or rising oil prices....just women's history month. What did he do on Saturday? AHyes, a round of golf. The mention of it was by ABC News..

Even as his administration and the US military help Japan recover from a devastating earthquake, the President could not resist taking advantage of the 48 degree weather.

Tahman Bradley
ABC News


Being a golfaholic that I am, I could almost like the guy but is that acceptable action for a president during a time of such crisis? I can only imagine the Japanese leader calling Obama to be told he would have to patch him in to the golf course!

It was summed up very accurately by the MRC..

"If George Bush reacted this way during an international catastrophe - wholly irrevelant radio addresses, golf outings for the 61st time, the left-wing media would require medically-induced sedatiion to keep them in check."

Brent Bozell
Media Research Center


Tell me that's not true. If it were Bush on the golf course, the press would have a feeding frenzy. Democratic congressmen would be screaming. Look how the press reacted by dissing him for not jumping up and running away from the schoolchildren when advised of 9-11. That is the double standard, Ron....the continual double-standard. With everything happening in the world Obama is acting like a disinterested observer. Even democratic congress fighting the budget battle are say "Where's Obama?" One could imaging he may be irritated that all of these little things like the Japan earthquake and things could be cutting into his golf game. Oh, wait...they're not!!


Bob, as far as your comments are concerned, I will remain speechless.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


113 posted 03-14-2011 08:52 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Of course, he put it together for his own political puffery but it was a fact that all of these people used the word the same day. If you want to say that was coincidence, or they used it because Matthews had introduced it a month before, ok, but to hear that many people use it at the same time seems a bit out of the ordinary to me.

You skimmed my post, right, Mike? That's my fault, I'm sure, for not making it more interesting.

First, Matthews didn't introduce the word a month before. He used it SIX months before, almost seven, maybe as the first person in that campaign to use the word, but certainly not the first to "introduce" a new word into American politics. The word gravitas has long been used to describe politicians. It still is, Mike, even if you're not hearing it.

Second, Matthews wasn't the ONLY person to use the word prior to Limbaugh's discovery of it. Far from it, as evidenced by the report out of Bush's own campaign. It was an issue, Mike, even if you weren’t hearing it.

Third, no, I wouldn't call it a coincidence at all. Both the word and the issue had been in the news for almost seven months before Bush took a giant step, by announcing Cheney as his running mate, to quell the persistent -- and no doubt valid -- accusation that he lacked gravitas. Every candidate tries to balance the ticket, and every reporter on the night of the announcement, tries to talk about how it was balanced. It was a calculated move by the Republicans, with an absolutely predictable result. It wasn't a coincidence, it wasn't in the least bit surprising, and it sure as heck wasn't a media conspiracy.

It was just Rush Limbaugh being Rush Limbaugh. And you and many more followed him right down the garden path.

quote:
A good point was made this weekend.

What? Can it be true? The Main Stream Media (I still don't know what that term means) saying something bad about a Democratic president? LOL. Will wonders never cease?

The principal job of the Fourth Estate, Mike, is to constantly poke the status quo with a big stick. The hope is that an independent and free press can help keep our politicians honest. I'm not sure that works any more (readership apathy and spin doctors have grown side by side each other), but it's probably still a valid idea, I think. Someone in the press is going to criticize Obama every step of the way. Just as they did with Bush. Yea, I know you think Bush got it a lot worse. You've got to admit, though, Bush made it very easy to criticize him.

As to the points being made, I think you're probably mixing apples and oranges. And you're mixing them in a thread about bananas?

The radio address was almost certainly calculated for some psycho-babble stuff I wouldn't understand (Bob might think he does), but no doubt took into account a lot of stuff the President doesn't tell me about. It was probably meant to be a soothing, look-there's-no-panic-in-America type of thing. I don't know. It does, however, remind me of similar complaints just days ago that the administration wasn't being vocal enough against Kadafi, complaints that might not have taken into account the Americans that were still, at that time, trapped in Libya and sitting ducks for retaliation. I certainly listen to such criticisms, but usually take them with a grain of salt.

The golf game was, I think, a different issue entirely, though I suppose it too might just as easily have been calculated for the same look-there's-no-panic-in-America image. Don't know. On the whole, though, I don't personally begrudge any leader either the time he needs to sleep or the time he needs to unwind. That's exactly the kind of micro-managing I always tried to avoid with my own people.

The only thing that really mattered to me were the results.

quote:
If it were Bush on the golf course, the press would have a feeding frenzy.

Which raises the more serious question of exactly who would choke on the pretzel this time?

Sorry, Mike. Like I said earlier, Bush made criticizing him SO easy.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


114 posted 03-14-2011 09:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It was probably meant to be a soothing, look-there's-no-panic-in-America type of thing.

Yes, that's true. He probably got together with his staff, said, "Look, Japan is in a major tragedy, the revolts continue in Libya and the Middle East, the budget is stalled, gas prices keep shooting up, people are worried. We need a plan to let them know everything is ok...I know! I'll go play golf!!! Surely they will be able to see that, if their president is golfing, there should be no reason to panic."

I should have known he had a master plan!

You are very generous with your excuses, Ron.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


115 posted 03-14-2011 10:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

One of my concerns with unions is their penchant for bullying and physical violence, Bob.

Another concern I have is with whom they allign themselves ideologically, like communist and socialist organizations. We conservatives tend to believe that such groups are the antithesis of the principles that our country was founded upon that led to a form of government that made us exceptional.

Other than that I think they are just swell!

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


116 posted 03-14-2011 10:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

The radio address was almost certainly calculated for some psycho-babble stuff I wouldn't understand (Bob might think he does), but no doubt took into account a lot of stuff the President doesn't tell me about.



     Huh?

     You might try reading The Bipersonal Field by Robert Langs, now a classic in the psychobabble field.  The book is mostly a series of transcripts of supervisory sessions;  Langs was the supervisor, training psychoanalysts who were treating some of their first patients.  He is relentless at pointing out the mistakes of his trainees and quite helpful at getting treatments on track.  If you read it, you may be forced to reconsider your position about psychobabble and you might hope that more therapists were trained this way.

     Insofar as your remarks were directed at me, I cannot comment.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


117 posted 03-14-2011 11:10 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank you, Denise, for getting the discussion back on track.

     But it sounds to me that you may be confusing the political system in this country with its economic system.  I don't believe that Capitalism was the economic system of choice for the United States any more than Communism was. At the time of the founding, the nature of both systems was still pretty much undescribed and not well understood, awaiting Adam Smith and Karl Marx respectively to do so at the mid-point of the next century.  Slightly before, actually.  To suggest otherwise is probably revisionist history.  If you want to go back to the founding fathers, you will have to deal with the big issue that they found too hot to deal with, and which would have split the country before it even started.  

     This was, among other things, a labor issue, having to do with salary and working conditions, and it shows what happens when the rights of those who work for a living are utterly undefended.  It's called slavery.  The original slave owners also characterized their slaves as brutish and dangerous and they lived in fear of the violence inherent in that system.  Even today we continue to use a descendant of the same old argument.  Instead of slaves being dangerous and violent, now the Right Wing characterizes Unions as being that way.  The Left has vivid memories of police, federal troops and Pinkertons being used to put down labor movements going back to Haymarket Square.

     It would be interesting to see which side sustained the largest number of casualties, wouldn't it.  I'd suspect labor, myself.

     Anyway, this is far from a full reply, but I did want to get back to you as quickly as possible.  I wanted you to know that there really are two sides to that particular part of this discussion, and that The Right Wing has been very silent on what Management has done to labor over the years, at least in companies that tend not to treat labor decently.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


118 posted 03-15-2011 08:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Did the founders create slavery or was it a carry over from the old world? Did the founders create a system of government that allowed for the eventual correcting of the system of slavery in this country?

Are you equating the slave owners with the conservatives of today, Bob?

Was it the Republicans or Democrats who later fought for Civil Rights?

Was it the labor unions who freed the slaves?

I'm sure the Left is very familiar with confrontations with the police. Violent civil disobedience usually tends to get the attention of law enforcement,

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


119 posted 03-15-2011 10:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Was it the Republicans or Democrats who later fought for Civil Rights?

Well said, Denise. A liberal would be wise to think twice before  bringing up the fight for civil rights with regards to slavery.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


120 posted 03-15-2011 11:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     There were no Democrats as such in Lincoln's time, Just as there was nothing like today's Republicans at that time.  Lincoln's Republican party was quite radical by comparison with the Whigs of the day, and what they were talking about and what they in fact did was essentially to nationalize one of the most important Southern Resources, their slaves, and to change their legal status without compensation to the original owners.  Any attempt by the government to nationalize anything today would not be greeted cheerfully by the Republicans today; nor, for that matter, by a lot of democrats, depending on what the resource was.

     Would you say a model 1900 Mercedes was the same as a model 2011 Mercedes?  Would you say they were the same thing?  If you won a mercedes in a contest, would you be happy with a copy of the 1900 model without antique value or would you like a 2011 model?  I wouldn't say they're the same car.  The argument you set forward suggests they might well be.

     The Republicans certainly fought for Civil Rights, and they should be proud of that.  They then used the fallout from the 1965 Civil Rights bill to scoop up all the racists that had formerly been Dixiecrat Southern Democrats and brought them into the mainstream Republican Party.  You would be hard-pressed to say that they've been pro civil rights since that time, and indeed have led efforts to roll back some of the gains in Civil Rights established during the Civil Rights Era.  To this day, they attempt to take voters off the rolls, and the voters they attempt to take off the rolls are largely Black and minority voters.

     Slavery was a carry over from the Old World.

     The Old World, however, had by and large outlawed it in its most obvious forms by the time of the civil war.  Most of them much earlier.  As wage slavery, I would argue,  it remained in place until the workers woke up to what was being done to them and began to unionize.  Unions made work more like what we think of today as work.  There was no longer, for example, a six day work week with twelve hour or longer work days.  Unions made wages into living wages.  They forced at least some of the businesses to adopt safety protections for workers, and to pay for accidents.  And so on.

     A lot of police were used by businesses in fighting demands like these.  Demands like these were considered wild radicalism.  Unions wanted equal pay for women and women's rights.  Guess who had trouble with that.  Being familiar with police about issues such as this is something a guy could be proud of.  

     I have more to say, but I think I'll limit myself to this, for now at least.  


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


121 posted 04-03-2011 10:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

After failing to intimidate lawmakers with protests and threats into backing down on the budget-repair bill reining in the collective-bargaining privileges of government employees, unions in Wisconsin sent out letters promising potentially illegal boycotts and attacks against businesses in the state that refuse to publicly support their demands.
In a letter obtained by The New American sent to companies in Wisconsin, a coalition of government-employee unions inform businesses that if they do not publicly oppose Republican efforts, they will be boycotted. If they join the battle on behalf of union bosses, however, good things will happen.

“The undersigned [coalition of government unions] would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin,” reads one of the letters obtained by The New American. If the company doesn’t respond within a week, the letter informs the recipient that unions “will assume” the firm stands with Gov. Walker.

“In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company,” the document continues. But if the firm gives in and joins, the unions promise to “publicly celebrate” the partnership.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/6957-wisconsin-unions-threaten-businesses


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


122 posted 04-04-2011 02:53 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What's the illegality you're speaking about here, Mike?  Which law is being broken?  Who is bringing the charge and before which court?  I looked to see the part of the posting that mentioned these things, but couldn't find it.

     If this is merely an allegation, then who might the party be that is making the allegation, and which Union is that party making that allegation against?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


123 posted 04-04-2011 06:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ask and ye shall receive....

"One of the laws cited by several pundits and columnists reads: “Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens ... or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with ... intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person's will ... is guilty of a Class H felony.”

Another criminal law would seem to apply as well, according to analysts: “Any 2 or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of willfully or maliciously injuring another in his or her reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his or her will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500.”

In addition to the pundits, some legislators are getting involved on the legal front too. Republican state Senator Van Wanggaard, a former police officer, sent a letter to the Attorney General urging him to investigate the threats. He said the Sheriff in his county was getting involved as well.

“We’re kind of looking into that now because there have been numerous complaints that have come into our office with this type of, I would call it thuggery where you‘re trying to intimidate people,” he told the Wisconsin-based MacIver News Service, comparing the tactics to a protection racket. “I’ve got people that are just really scared that these people are going to come back and do something to their business ... if they don’t bend.”  

Same article, Bob. You missed it, perhaps.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


124 posted 04-04-2011 10:06 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I did see the Republican State Senator make his comments, though not the references to the earlier laws.  I also saw no references to charges made, only to threats made by the Republicans.  Apparently, they seem to believe that they can attack people's wages and livelihoods and not get a response out of them.  They apparently also believe that they can ignore an injunction about putting the law into effect in the same way that they can  take something from a budget bill, re-title it, pretend it doesn't have budgetary effects and try to get it around the law that way..

     I predict that they are at the beginning of a very difficult time, and that this is simply the thin edge of the difficulties that are about to come their way.  They were elected to get some grip on spending, not to make the budget problems worse by passing out huge tax breaks to their buddies and sneak provisions into their budget bill that would allow them to  scuttle collective bargaining.  Nor were they elected to get around provisions of state law designed to put controls on exactly the kind of behavior they're engaging in.

[Edited Discuss the posts, not the posters, Bob. - Ron]

     My various comments about the inability of Republicans to tolerate Unions as a part of the market economy seem to apply here.  When the unions push back, and the labor part of the market asserts itself, all of a sudden, Free market Republicans suddenly forget their principles and become unwilling to allow the free market forces to operate other than those that make Capital the hero of the marketplace.  Money is very important, but there's more to the marketplace than purely Capital.  If you press on labor, labor presses back as well, the same as Capital does.  Labor seeks to acquire mass and velocity, the same way that Capital does as well.  Calling Labor names is no more useful than it is useful to swear at Capital.  Both are part of the market.

     The advantage that Labor has for most of us is that if we support Labor a bit more than we tend to support Capital, then we tend to generate a larger middle class, which seems to be better for the economy, and for the social and economic stability of the country overall.  While if we tend to support Capital more exclusively, then the split between rich and poor tends to widen and the middle class tends to shrink.

[This message has been edited by Ron (04-04-2011 02:39 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What"s This Problem The Right WingWith U   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors