No major reforms anywhere in sight
Jun.02, 2009 in
Airline Ticket Fares
with, our patients in other words, are in favor of MAJOR reforms, regardless of what the media is saying. … Unions Labor Collusion with Management ALPA Pilots pitted against pilots Major Airlines Regional Employee Free Choice Act Healthcare Reform Medicine for Profit Insurance Industry Lobby Big Pharma No Changes Grassroots Movements Nurses Medical Workers Fatigue Airlinepilotcentral California Association Veterans Responsibility Money over People Greed Tickets to Oblivion Cheap Airfares …
Tags: Act, against, airfares, Airlinepilotcentral, airlines, ALPA, Association, Big, California, Changes, cheap, Choice, Collusion, Employee, Fatigue, for, Free, Grassroots, Greed, Healthcare, industry, insurance, Labor, Lobby, Major, Management, Medical, Medicine, Money, Movements, No, Nurses, Oblivion, over, People, Pharma, Pilots, pitted, profit, Reform, Regional, Responsibility, Safety, Tickets, to, Unions, versus, Veterans, with, Workers
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
@stratvic: I’m not sure if we are living on the same planet, but your analogy is utterly laughable! When was the last time that ANY union in this country has employed VIOLENCE against their employers? Historically speaking it’s exactly the other way around, because union advocates are MURDERED to this very day in many countries. The relationship between employers + employees is not exactly mutually beneficial, as long the employer has ALL the power. Please read up on labor movements, ok?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
My third way is to call Z200a out for being a fagget ass crybaby, who needs to get off of YT and reattatch it’s self to it’s mother’s tit
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
A unions mission is to use force, violence, and coercion to distort what otherwise be a voluntary mutually beneficial relationship. It should not be surprising that seeking to employ force in the relationship with your employer will sour that relationship.
To give unions legal protection within the workplace is the equivalent of exonerating husbands who practice habitual rape within marriage with divorce applications from the wife denied and applications from the husband given freely.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
josh brackelsberg for house of reps in arizona! that’s me! i’ll vote it in!!! infiltrate the republicans!!!! we don’t have time to buid up the libertarians! take over the dead republican party! this is our time!!! push that! think about it! do it! i’ll try to get trent franks out in arizona, please support me and ron paul, and peter schiff!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
It’s been an interesting discussion, and I’ve enjoyed it. Sleep well
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* Everything on there is what I am actively working for, *
Well, best of luck to you, and good luck with your efforts. Interesting discussion, but I’m way overdue for bed. I’ll try to catch up with you after I get home from work tomorrow evening. Cheers and regards.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
You don’t have to like or agree with the answer, but you can’t deny that I am actively working towards the goals which I listed. It is a real “third way” regardless of your opinion.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Everything on there is what I am actively working for, every single day. Currently I am trying to convince people within unions to either push reforms within their unions or build new ones, depending on the situation. I’m also encouraging people outside of unions to create them, and have tried multiple times to get one started myself.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
So, everyone who kills in war, regardless of the cause, is a murderer? Again I’ll ask you, what makes the American revolution different? That was good “murder”? Murder can be good?
You’re guessing. Nothing in his posts suggests that he wishes to kill the members of our government, who very obviously would not be active participants within the war (anymore than they are within the Iraq or Afghan wars).
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* I describe my third way…my channel profile *
That’s not a 3rd way. That’s a political platform. A 3rd way has to be mutually exclusive to the other two “ways”: political revolution or working within the framework of our political system. Listing your political platform is not mutually exclusive to either of these approaches.
So, I would still like to hear your answer to the question: What’s your 3rd way? What’s your alternative to war or working within our system?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
It’s a lazy answer, I know, but I describe my third way in the “Interests and Hobbies” section of my channel profile.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials. *
Yes, he did. When you advocate civil war, you are inherently advocating murder. War means death. If you advocate war, you are advocating murder. While I suppose he might want the kind of civil war that would be violent only towards the American people and not their leaders, such an interpretation really streches credulity.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* she died at age 89 *
Apologies for the typo. Susan B. Anthony died at 86.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view … as naive. *
What’s your third way, then? What’s less naive than working within the parties, and less misguided than violence? I’d love to hear your solution to the problem.
In my view, our tools for effecting change are imperfect and limited, and progress is almost always painfully slow. How many decades did Susan B. Anthony fight for women’s suffrage? Did she reach her goal by the time she died at age 89?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Yes, I do disagree. There is no sin in betraying a government that has already betrayed us, and continues to do so. I have no loyalty to the government whatsoever.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. *
Again, you’re drawing inferences. I never “only” revolution against “the Crown” was good. I can imagine other times and places where violent rebellion might be called for. But this isn’t one of them.
* Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad. *
Hell yes it is. I’m sorry you don’t agree.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer primarily to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich?
ShaqZX never advocated the murder of elected officials.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances. *
But when this subject was raised, I was not talking about treason in the abstract. I was responding tos someone who is advocating civil war in America, today. I think that kind of rhetoric is uncalled for, and strongly oppose the sentiment that we need a civil war, should murder our leaders, or should become traitors to our nation. How about you?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think I understand now. I reread your post: “Okay – thanks. I’m not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you’re American, you’re a traitor. If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George.”
I see. Only treason (and murder?) against the Crown is good. Treason against our government, for some reason, is bad.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* The context in which you used the term certainly was not positive. You coupled it with “murder” both times. *
Yes, that’s right: I think people who are advocating murder and treason today are borderline criminal, and should be condemned. My question was what would give you the OPPOSITE impression, per your equestion, “So I was in error by viewing your mentions of “treason” as having negative connotations?”
Truth is, treason is no inherently wrong under all circumstances.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
The context in which you used the term certainly was not positive. You coupled it with “murder” both times.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* So I was in error by viewing your mentions of “treason” as having negative connotations? *
What have I said that would give you this idea?
I’m going to bed now, but i will respond to your response, if you post one, tomorrow.
Cheers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
So I was in error by viewing your mentions of “treason” as having negative connotations?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
So violent revolution=murder? Or, only violent revolution now=murder? So a revolution earlier or later wouldn’t have been murderous? Or do you think that the “murder” in the American Revolution was good “murder” as opposed to the bad “murder” that would occur now?
While I do think calls for a civil war are deeply misguided, I also regard your view of working within the parties as naive. Our government is filled by wealthy people who answer to even wealthier people. Do you plan on becoming rich
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
* I was referring primarily to your references to “treason.” *
Okay – thanks. I’m not sure what difference it makes. If you want to murder our leaders and overthrow our government, and you’re American, you’re a traitor.
If I was a colonist living in Boston in 1775, I would have been proud to be a traitor to the empire of King George.
Maybe today’s far-right extremists should embrace the word “traitor” and stop calling themselves “patriots.”