# Who is YOUR neighbor supportin'?



## MisterMike (Jul 28, 2004)

http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

That's...creepy.  I don't want people to be able to get my address so easily, although I know it's possible on other websites as well.  I'm just waiting for the day a deranged former student shows up at my door....

Interesting - esp. to see so many small Kerry contributions, and then every once in a while a big Bush contribution.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 28, 2004)

Depending on the geo, the Kerry contributions are pretty large too. Check out the color map around southern Cali.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 28, 2004)

It's also very interesting to note that in my area, executives and wealthy individuals are contributing large amounts to the RNC and Bush Campaign, while self-employed persons, teachers, laborers are contributing small amounts to Democratic candidates and the DNC.


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 29, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> It's also very interesting to note that in my area, executives and wealthy individuals are contributing large amounts to the RNC and Bush Campaign, while self-employed persons, teachers, laborers are contributing small amounts to Democratic candidates and the DNC.



I can understand the teachers. The teachers union tends to go liberal. They're also peeved at the no child left behind act. Because of the vouchers being instituted, teachers have to work harder to make sure that the students actually learn something. They also don't want to have their jobs on the line if a student ends up doing a better job at a private school, while costing the taxpayers less money. 

As for laborers, well, unions in general tend to go liberal. I, myself, have never been one for unions. They benefit the people who want to work the least the most. Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far. You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone. 

As for self-employed people, why the hell would they go with Kerry? He's a guy who votes for every damn tax increase and tried to put a 50 cent a gallon tax on gas. A self employed person could expect a lower profit margin with Kerry.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 29, 2004)

Yep, teachers and unions. Sources of All Evil in the universe. It's the damn teachers who keep demanding that kids actually learn stuff--those darn Judy Blume books! that dratted evil-lution!--and the damn unions that have the unmitigated gall to--get this!--demand living wages, affordable health care, a safe working conditions.

Those bastards. If they'd just leave the corporations, the fundamentalists, the wealthy, and Rupert Murdoch alone, a man could enjoy himself a little.

I've no idea who my neighbor's supportin'. I figure it's none of my beeswax.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 29, 2004)

This is slightly off the original topic, but - I hear that crap about union workers all the time.  Sorry, but I married a union worker the second time and a government worker the first time.  Guess which one works his hiney off and which one read comic books for 7 hours of his 8 hour shift?  The government worker read comic books.  He made darn good money, too, reading his autographed copy of Green Lantern #1.  My current husband (the laborer) does the work of three men and then comes home to work some more.  I don't see too many non-union workers doing the same thing.

 Like your weekends?  Thank unions.  Like working 8-10 hours per day instead of 16-20?  Thank unions.  Like cost of living raises?  Thank unions.  If it weren't for unions, there are people out there who have been putting their blood, sweat and tears into their work for so many years, if they never got a cost of living raise or worked non-union, would max out their salary at about 60-75% and in some cases, 50% of what a union worker makes.  Why is it important that laborers make decent wages?  Because they consume.  When you have a class of people who don't consume crime goes up, interest rates go up, cost of living goes up, the economy suffers, more layoffs occur and now we have even more people who can't consume.

 Unions have their place.  And when they are finally squashed into oblivian, we will once again depress financially as a nation, then someone will stand up for worker's rights again and they will form once more.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 29, 2004)

It may be a little bit drifty, but the intent of the thread was a little ambiguous, so that's no bad. We could discuss the value of unions as a topic unto itself should someone like to start a thread, but I think most here are on the same page with that. Maybe not.

Its interesting to me that they've been able to compile this information and make it searchable in a website.  They post this disclaimer:



> Lastly, our summaries of the FEC databases are NOT perfect.
> They are a total mess and we have done our best.


How accurate do you feel this is?  Not being American, I was unable to really test the engine there.  How close do you think it gets?  How recent is the info?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 29, 2004)

Maybe if there was universal health insurance, we wouldn't need unions, huh?  I'm trying to figure out how to pay the COBRA premium for me and my kids, while my boyfriend's union made sure he gets health and dental insurance.

I'll tell you why a self-employed person would vote for Kerry--because self-employed people want the same things everyone else wants:  Health insurance, which s/he, of all people, can't afford.  Education for the kids, for which Bush gives only lip service.  Affordable fuel, which we don't have.  An honest presidential administration, which we don't have.  Peace, which we don't have.  A solvent economy, which Bush destroyed.

The Bush administration works strictly for large corporations, not for the little guy, self-employed or not.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> That's...creepy.  I don't want people to be able to get my address so easily, although I know it's possible on other websites as well.  I'm just waiting for the day a deranged former student shows up at my door....
> 
> Interesting - esp. to see so many small Kerry contributions, and then every once in a while a big Bush contribution.





Don't worry, Feisty.  I'm very possessive.  I shall be the only one to stalk you...I'll allow no others to compete with me in that regard.

By the way...could you move your microwave closer to the refrigerator?  When you turn it on, it interferes with the bug I placed in your kitchen.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 29, 2004)

:roflmao: Oh, of course!  Sorry about that microwave mix-up.


On a more serious note, teachers in public schools DO work very hard.  Threatening to take even MORE money away from them is ludicrous as a "solution".

The union people I know are extremely hard workers, doing often dangerous jobs.  It's easy to ***** about unions when you have job security or are wealthy, I think.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 29, 2004)

> Kerry? He's a guy who votes for every damn tax increase and tried to put a 50 cent a gallon tax on gas.


This is getting really tiresome. Here's the reality: Ten years ago, when the average price of gasoline was $1.01/gallon, John Kerry supported the idea of a 50 cent tax on gasoline. John Kerry has not espoused this idea in recent years.

Just for the record, N Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor, called a 50 cent/gal tax on gasoline a great way to fund a 10% overall income tax decrease, and to sustain "more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency."

*On March 29, 2003, Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw was appointed by PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and sworn into office as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.*

So maybe it wasn't such a bad idea in the first place. Or is somebody watching a little too much Fox News?


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 29, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Maybe if there was universal health insurance, we wouldn't need unions, huh?  QUOTE]
> 
> Universal health care sounds great. I admit, where anyone could walk into a hospital and get quality health care right away. However, you need to realize, that somebody has to pay for it. Who will pay for it in this case? The government. Now where does the government get their money? Your taxes. Which means as malpractice insurance rates continue to skyrocket, who's going to have to pay the doctor's salary?  That's right, the typical taxpayer.
> 
> ...


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 29, 2004)

This one is on topic:

HOLY ****! THERE'S SOMEONE WITH MY NAME WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HOWARD DEAN!! Now this thing is scary....


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 29, 2004)

Thank you for returning to topic.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 29, 2004)

"History has always shown," my foot.

There's an interesting article in today's, "New York Times." Hey, guess what. While Europe has lots of problems, the stats say that they a) work less, b) have comparable or higher productivity rates, c) enjoy life more, d) take more vacations, e) live longer, and remain healthy later in life, f) have higher literacy and lower drug/alcohol rates....oh yes, g) eat better, h) have better access to health and child care.

Much of the reason that Americans vote as they do is that they've bought the Big Lie: working harder and harder to get less and less (our work week's rising, our actual wages are down), so the wealthy and powerful can get more and more, is Good For You. It's why we elect the putzes we elect...Dan Quayle, Bush II, neither of whom appear to've ever done a day's hard work in their lives, both of whom floated through life and college and business on their daddy's connections and their daddy's money. 

Part of the reason I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for Kerry is that for all his wealth--well actually, his wife's wealth--he actually took some risks and stood up for something, during and after Vietnam. What'd our current President ever risk? What's he ever stood up for--the right to make sweetheart deals in the oil bidness (three failed companies, if memory serves) and in the stadium-building biz?

As for teachers and union-members being lazy, and lawyers going to court, well, that's part of the Big Lie too. They're not the primary reasons costs go up. Try this: for example, Wellpoint Medical--they're the parent company for Blue Cross--is getting bought out. It's estimated that this will cost ratepayers 200 million over the next few years. Executives will get 60 mil. California's insurance comissioner said no; the companies plan to sue the State.

Or a few years ago in Long Beach, Boeing bought out McDonnell-Douglas. Swore up and down: no layoffs, no lost jobs, they'd keep the plant where it was, just PLEEZE approve the deal. Anybody wanna guess how long that promise lasted?

It never fails to amaze me, the extent to which working people and the members of the lower middle class are willing to vote against their own best interests.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 29, 2004)

Instead of "holding your nose" while voting for Kerry, how about looking at his record, and being proud to cast your vote:

He would close the loopholes that reward corporations taking jobs overseas. 
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. 
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. 
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. 
He would FULLY FUND the mandated education standards
He has voted in favor of every initiative to improve the environment
He has voted in favor of almost every elections reform measure.
He's against cutting or privatizing social security.
He supports separation of church and state.
He has a distinguished military record.
He's actually worked for a living.
The difference between Kerry and Bush is so obvious, let's stop the "nose-holding."


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 29, 2004)

**holding a lit lighter up while reading Phoenix44's post**


Is true.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 29, 2004)

*SOLD*  Kerry's got my vote and I'm darn proud of it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 29, 2004)

_Universal health care sounds great. I admit, where anyone could walk into a hospital and get quality health care right away. However, you need to realize, that somebody has to pay for it. Who will pay for it in this case? The government. Now where does the government get their money? Your taxes. Which means as malpractice insurance rates continue to skyrocket, who's going to have to pay the doctor's salary?  That's right, the typical taxpayer. 

If you really want to get into healthcare, Kerry himself was out campaigning the day that a cap on medical lawsuits was brought into the senate. He could have worked to pass a vote that could have retarded the increase in health care costs. This went through the senate, and Clinton vetoed on it. Edwards made his money on several medical lawsuits claiming that by not doing a c-section, babies had cerebral palsy. Now, after that rash of lawsuits, women are having to try to find obstetricians like mad. Obstetricians are closing their doors because they can't afford to pay malpractice insurance. There has been a 500% increase in the instances of c-sections. Have the instances of cerebral palsy gone down? No. 

These are the people you want to trust with health care?_


Actually, yes...I do.

Malpractice caps placed in California and elsewhere did nothing to lower the insurance rates.  They continued to skyrocket.  Why?  The insurance companies base their rates on more than claims from litigants.  They've made a huge amount of money off of this.  We need to see some regulation of the insurance companies themselves.  They benefit from awards caps...and they benefit from ripping off doctors.

I suspect Kerry didn't vote that day because he didn't favor the caps approach on insurance.  This is probably why Clinton vetoed it.  Clinton's veto alone explains why Kerry didn't need to vote on it (anticipating the President's response).  

What other pork was attached to the bill that might have influenced their stance on it?  Can you tell me?  Can you tell us the name of the bill so we can reference the issue?  Who sponsored it?  Republicans?  Who backed it?  The insurance companies?  Who backs Republican candidates?  The insurance companies?  (Actually, they do...I shouldn't have phrased that last one as a question.  They're one of Bush's biggest supporters.)

Health care in this country has been championed by the Democratic party since before many on this board were born.  If we want to effect efficient health care coverage in this country this is the party to do it.

Sure...we're going to have to pay for it through taxes...but once we start taxing big businesses and the rich like they deserve to be taxed..._which is their fair share_...it ought not be that big of a problem.   

This is the richest nation in the world, and of the industrialized west only we fail to have adequate health care for everyone.  That is at best an embarrassment, and at worst it is a disgrace.  We will never reach our economic potential without taking ourselves to task and doing right by our citizens.  




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 29, 2004)

Guys, is this thread about who you're supporting, or who your neighbour is supporting?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 29, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Guys, is this thread about who you're supporting, or who your neighbour is supporting?




Sorry.

Kerry.  If you couldn't guess. 

My neighbor and her live in lover are also supporting Kerry.  They just moved in.  I believe their dog Henry is also a Democrat.  He has a gentle, honest look to him.

Could anyone make up a poll on this?  Or has there been one?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2004)

Whos for letting the illegal aliens stay? Thats probably who my neighbors, living 7-8 families to a 2 bedroom house, are voting for.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Whos for letting the illegal aliens stay? Thats probably who my neighbors, living 7-8 families to a 2 bedroom house, are voting for.


I think that would be Bush. He would like to legalize all current undocumented workers in the US (Good for Agri-Business).

Kerry is for 'earned' legality for undocumented workers. That means some sort of litmus test for those here.

Today I heard it took Bush 3 & 1/2 years to get to his policy. Kerry stated he would develop and announce his program in the first 4 months of his presidency.

But, that was a rhetorical question, right?


Also ... Robert ... While I agree that our neighbors can support whomever they would like to support, and it is none of our business, the other side of the coin is who is 'purchasing access' to our policy makers should be public, shouldn't it?

Mike

P.S. ... I sent 100 bucks to Granny D for Senate. ... I kept meaning to send some cash to Kucinich, but now that he's gone with Kerry ... I think I'll just send a vote ....


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 30, 2004)

Okay - my neighbor to the north is voting Democrat all the way.  My neighbor to the east is voting Republican all the way.  And my neighbors to the west and south don't vote because they feel disenfranchised and believe the vote to be fixed and fraudulent.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jul 30, 2004)

Well,this information being out there is scary, because some of us live in areas where it seems like we are the only ones who support the candidates we do. I'm a democrat who lives in an ultra conservative part of the country. Conservatives in some parts of the country probably feel the same way. We keep our opinions to ourselves, don't bring up politics in normal everyday conversation and grind our teeth a lot because it seems like the whole world, at least the one we see in our daily life, no one sees things our way. So I don't want people knowing who I contribute to. And I won't put on a Kerry bumper sticker, because I know that I'd walk out of the coffee shop and meet up with some jerk who felt that he had to set me straight about America. Republicans in some parts of the country probably feel that could happen to them too. We're too divided right now, not willing to listen to each other, too intolerant, for this information to be public.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> Well,this information being out there is scary, because some of us live in areas where it seems like we are the only ones who support the candidates we do. I'm a democrat who lives in an ultra conservative part of the country. Conservatives in some parts of the country probably feel the same way. We keep our opinions to ourselves, don't bring up politics in normal everyday conversation and grind our teeth a lot because it seems like the whole world, at least the one we see in our daily life, no one sees things our way. So I don't want people knowing who I contribute to. And I won't put on a Kerry bumper sticker, because I know that I'd walk out of the coffee shop and meet up with some jerk who felt that he had to set me straight about America. Republicans in some parts of the country probably feel that could happen to them too. We're too divided right now, not willing to listen to each other, too intolerant, for this information to be public.


So much for a 'Free Country', eh ?

Thanks for contributing - Mike


----------



## Brother John (Jul 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yep, teachers and unions. Sources of All Evil in the universe. It's the damn teachers who keep demanding that kids actually learn stuff--those darn Judy Blume books! that dratted evil-lution!--and the damn unions that have the unmitigated gall to--get this!--demand living wages, affordable health care, a safe working conditions.
> 
> Those bastards. If they'd just leave the corporations, the fundamentalists, the wealthy, and Rupert Murdoch alone, a man could enjoy himself a little.
> 
> I've no idea who my neighbor's supportin'. I figure it's none of my beeswax.


Wow...
a tad bit touchy there Robert?
He didn't say anything that's not just plain fact.

take a breath Rob...
it's gonna be Okay.
 :ultracool 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Jul 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I believe their dog Henry is also a Democrat.



That's a new demographic. 
I knew those Dems could motivate their grass roots base.
 :ultracool 

Your Brother
John


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 30, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Instead of "holding your nose" while voting for Kerry, how about looking at his record, and being proud to cast your vote:
> 
> He would close the loopholes that reward corporations taking jobs overseas.
> Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
> ...



1. Corporations are always going to take their jobs overseas, because it's cheaper.
2. The concept of a hate crime is horribly biased. If a black man attacks a white man, it's not a hate crime, but no matter what happens, if a white man attacks a black man, then it is. 
3. I have no opinion on.
4. Alot of republicans even voted for that. 
5.He also voted against the current educational standards.
6.Not aware of these reform measures, i need to look into them.
7.If you're allowed to take what's being put into social security, and stick in inot a RothIRA, you won't NEED social security. Last time I checked, not having to depend on the government is a good thing.
8.Faith based initiatives and treatments have been shown to be cheaper and more effective. Noone is forced into them. They go voluntarily. 
9.Distinguished? What planet are you living on? The vast majority of veterans in his own company have said they wouldn't trust Kerry to be president. He hasn't released his military records, and one of his former Commanding Officers stated why: on one of his evaluations, it was writtent that he "needed constant supervision". He also flipped off a veteran in front of the memorial, but for some reason the media didn't want to report that.
10. Worked??? He married an heiress to the Heinz fortune!!!


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _Sure...we're going to have to pay for it through taxes...but once we start taxing big businesses and the rich like they deserve to be taxed...which is their fair share...it ought not be that big of a problem.
> e_


_


Umm, just want to let you know, the richest 2% pay for HALF of the nations taxes. Would you like to have their percentage of taxes taken out of your paycheck? You know, to do your fair share?_


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Wow...
> a tad bit touchy there Robert?
> He didn't say anything that's not just plain fact.


What exactly is a 'plain fact'?



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> I can understand the teachers. The teachers union tends to go liberal. They're also peeved at the no child left behind act. Because of the vouchers being instituted, teachers have to work harder to make sure that the students actually learn something. They also don't want to have their jobs on the line if a student ends up doing a better job at a private school, while costing the taxpayers less money.


Unionized teachers often support the Democratic party. While there are a wide variety of views within both political parties, it is a 'plain fact' that teachers "go liberal". Yes, many professional educators are upset with the No Child Left Behind act .... possibly because it has become an 'Unfunded Mandate' ... something I used to hear about from Republicans. Hmmm. And, as others have pointed out, the certainty of the 'plain fact' that private schools cost taxpayers less money can also be questioned.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> As for laborers, well, unions in general tend to go liberal. I, myself, have never been one for unions. They benefit the people who want to work the least the most. Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far. You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone.


It is also a 'plain fact' that liberals don't want to work, which is why they form unions. And collective bargianing is really about controlling all the money in the country without any accountability. Thank God for Wal-Mart.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> As for self-employed people, why the hell would they go with Kerry? He's a guy who votes for every damn tax increase and tried to put a 50 cent a gallon tax on gas. A self employed person could expect a lower profit margin with Kerry.


And it is a 'plain fact', that Kerry is going to set price controls on independent businesses to control profit margins .... Free Market be damned. Self-employed people don't need to find ways to become more efficient, thus lowering their costs. Nor should they be able to set prices for goods and services to determine their profit margins. Kerry, will take care of all of that for us.

It is a "PLAIN FACT".

Mike

OK ... sorry about the sarcasm .... what deadhand31 said was not 'plain fact', it was spin. Certainly, he is entitled to his opinion, as are we all. But facts are not generalizations ... and generalizations are not facts.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But facts are not generalizations ... and generalizations are not facts.


That's a fact.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 30, 2004)

*9.Distinguished? What planet are you living on? The vast majority of veterans in his own company have said they wouldn't trust Kerry to be president. He hasn't released his military records, and one of his former Commanding Officers stated why: on one of his evaluations, it was writtent that he "needed constant supervision". He also flipped off a veteran in front of the memorial, but for some reason the media didn't want to report that.*

A "vast majority"?  Cite the poll.  

Did you see the Democratic Convention last night?  Two boat commanders from his squadron, the living members of his crew and crew members of other boats appeared on stage with Kerry.  The Special Forces lieutenant whose life he saved spoke.  He won the nations third and fourth highest awards for valor (Silver Star, Bronze Star)...and these awards had to be submitted by one of his former commanding officers.  Kerry didn't put himself in for these medals.  

As for releasing his records, you're about three months behind the information loop:

"APRIL 21--John Kerry was "unofficially credited" with killing 20 enemy fighters during his five months in Vietnam, according to military records just released by the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign. The body count reference is included in a glowing 1969 Navy report that noted Kerry, a 25-year-old junior grade lieutenant, exhibited "all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment." The Navy document, a copy of which you'll find below, was among hundreds of pages released today by the Kerry camp in response to requests from reporters and criticism from Republicans demanding full disclosure of the U.S. Senator's military record."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421041kerry1.html 

*10. Worked??? He married an heiress to the Heinz fortune!!!*

He was a successful prosecutor prior to being a Senator.  He was a Senator prior to meeting Theresa.  Her late husband introduced SENATOR Kerry to Theresa...after he died, the two hooked up.  Are you even aware how long they've been married?  NINE YEARS.  Do you think he was panhandling prior to that?

Here's his work record:

1972-1978; Assistant District Attorney, Middlesex County, 1977-1979; Attorney, 1979-1982; Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor, 1982-84; U.S. senator, 1984-present.

Given that they met in the early nineties, I think it safe to say you're buying into some pretty silly myths here.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Brother John (Jul 30, 2004)

Hey Steve
Isn't it true that this isn't the first wealthy heiress that J.Kerry has married?
Thought I'd heard to the contrary.

Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'. 

honestly just wondering.

Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 30, 2004)

One of the things this thread shows is what we all already know: some folks WILL NOT look at reality or at history. They won't do it. They'll throw moral accusations. They'll make ridiculous claims ("faith based initiatives are cheaper...people go voluntarily"), which they'll never question. They'll insult and attack anybody who doesn't agree with 'em--if it's politics, the usual attack is that you're, "un-American"--and then turn around and accuse you of creating social turmoil. 

It won't surprise me a bit if Bush ends up re-elected, and I'll tell you why. People vote for Bush because they're scared: they're scared of the way the country is changing (as it always has) demographically, and they prefer the constant race-baiting to an understanding of who their fellow Americans really are. They're scared about their jobs (and they probably should be), and they don't want to see the contradictions between the economics in which they believe and what those economics do to people, communities and countries. They're worried about what they see as moral collapse because they've been encouraged to look at history completely unrealistically, because this best suits the purposes of conservative politicians. They're scared about their health--and they should be--but they don't want to consider what's happened to their environment because of our economic system, they don't want to consider diet and exercise and stress reduction, and they don't want to admit that other people need care too. 

What's worst about the Republicans, these days, is their absolute denial of the social contract--they may play images of America, but they advocate policies that tear the country apart. They may yell about morality, but every time you turn around, these guys are getting caught cheating and lying about their companies' finances. And always--the market, the market, the holy market. 

I suspect Bush will end up re-elected. It's the politics of fear, of race, of greed, of ignorance.

I just wish the Democrats could do a little better. Any time your left wing's represented by Dennis Kuchinich (a granola fascist if I ever saw one) and Howard Dean (a weird and creepy shrieker), you're in trouble. 

Hillary's looking better and better, since there's no chance anybody like Tom Hayden, Tim Wirth, Bob Kerrey, or Barbara Jordan will make it.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What exactly is a 'plain fact'?
> 
> Unionized teachers often support the Democratic party. While there are a wide variety of views within both political parties, it is a 'plain fact' that teachers "go liberal". Yes, many professional educators are upset with the No Child Left Behind act .... possibly because it has become an 'Unfunded Mandate' ... something I used to hear about from Republicans. Hmmm. And, as others have pointed out, the certainty of the 'plain fact' that private schools cost taxpayers less money can also be questioned.
> 
> ...



Thanks for saying "sorry about the sarcasm", that makes a difference.

Guess I've always thought that it was generally accepted fact that the NEA is liberal and almost always supports the Democratic party and not the Republican party. Do you know of a NEA group that does the opposite?? I don't. 

You yourself said that the teachers are, in general, upset with the "No Child Left Behind" act.


> It is also a 'plain fact' that liberals don't want to work, which is why they form unions.


This I didn't know. The liberals I know almost all have jobs and do well at them. I don't think that political persuasion goes hand in hand with one work ethic or the other. BUT: I do believe that unions end up having the effect of defending workers who have little to NO work ethic...just becuase they've been there a while. 
I also agree with his point that unions are a mixed deal, producing some good and some negative effects. Is this not true???


> And it is a 'plain fact', that Kerry is going to set price controls on independent businesses to control profit margins .... Free Market be damned.


One someone is "going to do" isn't a fact, it's a promise.
Polititians from both sides of the isle are notorious for breaking those.

Maybe these are generalizations as you say. So be it.
They are generally true.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, that was a rhetorical question, right?



Nope.  I really was wondering what their stands on this issue were.  I knew Bush was for it, didnt know what Kerry thought... and yeah, I was being sarcastic about my neighbors, although truthful.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 30, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Umm, just want to let you know, the richest 2% pay for HALF of the nations taxes. Would you like to have their percentage of taxes taken out of your paycheck? You know, to do your fair share?


 Your idea of "fair share" is kind of skewed.

 The richest pay a FAR tinier share of their total income in taxes than do anyone else.  

 Wage earnings make up 71% of total personal income in the US, but taxes on wage earnings make up 88% of total federal personal taxes.   On the other hand, investment income makes up 22% of US total personal income, but investment taxes make up only 11% of total federal personal taxes.

 Guess which income group makes most of their income from investment income?

 Over time, since the Reagan administration, the ratios of wage tax vs investment tax have continued to alter in favor of the wealthy.  The wealthy retain more and more of their income all the time.  Is that "fair"?

 Why isn't it "fair" that the people who benefit most from our society contribute most in order to perpetuate the opportunities and benefits of that society?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What's worst about the Republicans, these days, is their absolute denial of the social contract.


 Republicans and Libertarians, on the whole, appear to deny the actual existence of the social contract.  Their policies appear to advocate a return to some sort of neo-feudal society, where the hoi polloi happily scrabble at their hamster wheels, producing more capital and happiness for the wealthy few while still living fever-dreams of somehow being uplifted to those classes where they, in turn, can reap the labors of others.

 The hardest part for me is telling which members of those groups actually recognize this and actively want that sort of society, and which simply buy into the vision sold to them by the right-wing political machine.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 30, 2004)

Hey Steve
Isn't it true that this isn't the first wealthy heiress that J.Kerry has married?
Thought I'd heard to the contrary.

Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'. 



John,

If anyone wants to suggest that Kerry acquired all his wealth through his marriages...that he was some sort of "gold digger", then they buy into another myth...or strive to propogate it.  But I'll address these rhetorical questions for the liberals here, who might like to reference that which follows.

Kerry was a legacy student at Yale, like George W.  Kerry's father took a law degree from Harvard and worked for the State Department.  His mother was a member of the Forbes shipping family and a direct descendant of John Winthrop, who helped found Boston in 1630.

Given his social status, it is perfectly reasonable for John Kerry to have met and married the women he did.  Does anyone honestly expect him to woo and betroth a woman from a trailer park in Henderson, Kentucky?  

As for questioning the adjective "successful", it seems you do so apparently to exploit the notion that Kerry never got anywhere on his own merit.  This encourages the meme's virulence among the uninformed electorate--of which, I would like to think, you are not a part.

The facts are clear.  He was recognized for his talents and promoted above his peers by the DA (and to the resentment of many).  Kerry then revamped the Middlesex County DA's office and made it far more efficient. He prosecuted two mob bosses and got them put away.  Even his critics recognize his accomplishments in this area.  Within four years he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachussetts.

Here are some articles regarding that career that I fully expect the conservatives here won't read:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact1

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_F._Kerry



Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 30, 2004)

:erg:  ooooooooooooooooooo    biting my tongue!!!!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 30, 2004)

Why bite your tongue?    *I* want to hear what you have to say!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Guess I've always thought that it was generally accepted fact that the NEA is liberal . . .


What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates. Well, who are the educators?  They are college graduate, middle income people. Their point of view is generally in line with others who have the same level of income and education.

But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian. 

But, deadhand31 broadstroked all teachers as lazy; I believe the quote was "people who want to work the least". I find that statement arrogant, offensive and ignorant. 

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Jul 31, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Hey Steve
> Isn't it true that this isn't the first wealthy heiress that J.Kerry has married?
> Thought I'd heard to the contrary.
> 
> ...



Steve-
You are making it seem that I am implying/propagating things that I am not.


> If anyone wants to suggest that Kerry acquired all his wealth through his marriages...that he was some sort of "gold digger", then they buy into another myth...or strive to propogate it.


You may have said "if anyone"...but it came directly after "John," so it implies me most directly. 
I never said nor implied "gold digger", _you did_. All I did was ask a question, (Not a rhetorical one as you said) to which the only correct answer is yes, it is true. I don't care if he married for love, money, social status or just really great sex...I wouldn't vote for or against him due to his marital status. Neither would I vote for or against him due to his own economic history. I don't care if he came up from nothing or if he is a Rockafeller (sp?). All I did was ask a question. 

I never implied that Kerry acquired all, most or any of his wealth through marriage.... I've known for a good while that he comes from Old money and that he's never HAD to work a day in his life if he didn't want to. In an interview with his mother she bragged on her son by saying that "as a boy he even treated the servants well."
Good for him. I don't care if he had servants. I'm not one who believes that wealth, aquired or born into, makes a person bad/evil or wrong; nor a good nor bad polititian. 

Then you said:


> As for questioning the adjective "successful", it seems you do so apparently to exploit the notion that Kerry never got anywhere on his own merit.


I did question what made his law career 'successful' because I didn't KNOW anything about his law career. How the hell can I "exploit" something to which I'm confessing ignorance??????? Now that's a trick. It's all too easy to throw the adjective "successful" onto something you'd like to promote without reason, I just wanted to know the reason...... which would have been obvious to anyone who'd read the line in my reply that said 





> honestly just wondering.


Did you think I was a scoundrel trying to throw dirty watter on Sen. Kerry's legal career??? Do you think I'm lying to try to make a point? I've got better things to do than to come here and lie to you or anyone in the form of an 'honest' question. 
Personally I'd hope to GOD that he did have a successful career! My personal belief is that there never was, is or will be a polititian that gets as far as a presidential candidate who doesn't have a hell of a lot going for him. To get there you must be smart, savvy, industrious and productive to say the least. It's become very hip to make it seem that President Bush is stupid, but he's not. Just like people from my side of the isle tried to make President Clinton out to be evil, but he's NOT. President Clinton said a great thing in his interview with 60minutes a month ago...he said that people often forget that a polititian can be wrong without being bad. Very true. 


> Here are some articles regarding that career that I fully expect the conservatives here won't read:


THIS conservative read them. WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??
Not good my hardheaded friend.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Jul 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates. Well, who are the educators?  They are college graduate, middle income people. Their point of view is generally in line with others who have the same level of income and education.
> 
> But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian.
> 
> ...



Mike,
Thanks for the more respectful, less sarcastic, reply. I apreciate it as it makes it easier to have a discussion.


> What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates.


What study found this out? I question this factoid. 
This seems like a "class against class" ploy. "We are more educated. You only hold your view because you are less educated."


> But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian.


Much agreed!! My father is a retired teacher who is & was a conservative Republican. So were many of his associates. But the fact that there are a wide variety of points of view as you point out.... it doesn't matter. The whole fo the NEA is NOT the sum of it's parts. The NEA gets your dues, the NEA gives them to back the Democratic ticket. The diverse points of view of the teachers is great, but the NEA is MUCH more tunnel-visioned.


> But, deadhand31 broadstroked all teachers as lazy; I believe the quote was "people who want to work the least". I find that statement arrogant, offensive and ignorant.


That would be arrogant, offensive and ignorant IF that's what he said, but it's not.
Here's what he said:


> As for laborers, well, unions in general tend to go liberal. I, myself, have never been one for unions. They benefit the people who want to work the least the most. Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far. You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone.


See, he wasn't talking about 'teachers', he was talking about the effect of unions. I don't think he's far off either. He doesn't say that teachers "want to work the least", he's refering to union workers. He's not saying that all union workers "want to work the least" either, he's just saying that unions tend to benefit the ones who want to work the least, and they do. He even goes on from there to qualify what he was saying: 





> You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone.


 He wasn't braodstroking teachers, he was making a generalized statement about unions and why 





> I, myself, have never been one for unions.


Even then he further states: 





> Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far.


I think you mischaracterized his words and read an intent to them that originated in you, not him.

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

John, I have to disagree with you concerning what deadhand31 said:

In the 5th post of this thread, he forwarded his argument in this way.

a) *teachers* *unions* tend to go liberal
b) deadhand31 has never been one for *unions*
c) *unions* benefit the people who want to work the least the most

I can't find a way that deadhand meant to say unions benefit all people _other than teachers_ who want to work the least. It may have been a seperate paragraph. He may not have meant to say that teachers are 'slackers'. But he did mention one of the number one beefs against teachers; the inability to fire someone ... e.g. tenure.

* * * * * 

Concerning the statement 'College Educated, middle income' people tend to be more liberal. This statement came from a very progressive point of view (Eric Alterman - Go Eric) and was focused at the 'So Called Liberal Media'. When I read the statement though (copied here), it struck me as axiomatic; and could also be applied to teachers. Anyhow ... here is the quote. Take it for what it is worth.



			
				Altercation said:
			
		

> www.altercation.msnbc.com
> Here we go again: Howie "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz is praising New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent's admission that the Times is a "liberal" newspaper as "courageous." Click here to read the Kurtz chat and click here for the Okrent column.
> 
> It serves me right. Just last week I had lunch with a Times editor and I defended Okrent for doing an excellent job as public editor, despite a few mishaps. Now he goes and does this. Let's get this straight everybody. *Journalists are socially liberal, just like every single well-educated, well-paid group of urban professionals.* On occasion this shows up in the coverage, when it comes to say, creationists and people who think homosexuals should burn in Hell sooner rather than later. But even on this issue set, where attitudes are consistent, there is evidence of considerable effort to bend over backwards to be nice to Bible-thumpers. On most political issues, however, journalists are not only not liberal, they are often more sympathetic to the conservatives than to the liberals; this is in part a reflection of their economic status and in part a reflection of the fact that they are but a weathervane of the force of gale winds attacking them and until recently, just about all the attacks have been coming from the right.


Seems to me that the sentence in bold could apply equally to journalists and educators.

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Jul 31, 2004)

Food for thought Mike, thanks.

I'm not a know it all (I just play one on TV) so discussions like these can help.


Have a good day.

Your Brother
John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 31, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Steve-
> You are making it seem that I am implying/propagating things that I am not.
> 
> You may have said "if anyone"...but it came directly after "John," so it implies me most directly.
> ...




John,

Chill OUT.

"Anyone" implies just that.  The issue of Kerry's wealth, as you know, is one of the most harped upon grass roots personal attacks of this campaign.  Bush doesn't hit it...but conservative populists run with it every day.  

You wrote:

_I never implied that Kerry acquired all, most or any of his wealth through marriage.... I've known for a good while that he comes from Old money _ 

If that's the case, don't ask the question regarding Theresa and her predecessor.  It has nothing to do with this election.

I do in fact think your use of the word "successful" was a deliberate attempt to call into question Kerry's competency.  A simple "Google" of "Kerry Prosecutor" yields his record.  Regardless of your claim to honest ignorance, as phrased the question came off as a sarcastic challenge to Kerry's experience as an asst. DA.   If you don't want to come off that way, learn to tweak your prose.

_Do you think I'm lying to try to make a point? I've got better things to do than to come here and lie to you or anyone in the form of an 'honest' question. _ 

Lying?  No.  Disingenous?  Yes.  Either that or you fall too easily into a fallacious rhetoric that confuses those who read it.  If I'm wrong...then again, tweak your prose.

_WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??_

Hateful?  Or challenging?  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Brother John (Jul 31, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> John,
> 
> Chill OUT.
> 
> ...


Steve:
YOU FIRST.



> If that's the case, don't ask the question regarding Theresa and her predecessor.  It has nothing to do with this election.


I ask whatever question I like and I'm not about to stop. OF COURSE it makes sense that he courted and married within his own socio-economic strata....so what. THAT'S MY POINT, it doesn't matter. I disagree with those who try to put Kerry in a "gold-digger" frame. It side tracks us from real issues. You'll think what you want to think about what I have to say Steve. That's your right, and your free to it. I'd wish we could have a political debate w/out needing to defend marriage choices, religious afiliation, how much money we have or don't have....these aren't important. I was just participating in a discussion. 


> I do in fact think your use of the word "successful" was a deliberate attempt to call into question Kerry's competency.


Well, then that's your problem. Personally I think now that you know I'm a Bush supporter you view anything I say with a tainted lens. I didn't know anything about Sen. Kerry's career in law. I don't care to. I know I disagree with his stance on a few things that are important to me, so I don't need to "google" anything about his past. Those few things that are important to me are enough to let me know that he can't be my candidate of choice. I don't care to paint him in one light or another anymore. I don't like him, that's my choice. I've called him "scarry Kerry" in the past, then a good man showed me that I wasn't being consistant with my views on respect for authority. You will go on interpreting what I say how you like. I won't change my views or how I state them however. I do have some integrity. 


> Regardless of your claim to honest ignorance, as phrased the question came off as a sarcastic challenge to Kerry's experience as an asst. DA.   If you don't want to come off that way, learn to tweak your prose.


My claim of ignorance? Sarcastic???? Come on Steve, get real. 
Here it is again for your viewing plesure...


> Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'.


I'd never heard what his SUCCESS was. I really didn't know how long he was one. I really didn't know what his successes in law were. 
Where the hell's this supposed sarcasm? The word "successful" is arbitrary and vague. Hitler was 'successful', up until the last year. Stalin was successful. Success doesn't say much. My next door neighbor is a very successful drunk, he's always out by the pool drunk...very consistant too. I AM NOT equating these people or their "Success" to John Kerry. Far from it. I am, however, showing why I was questioning what this success was. You showed it, now I know. 
I didn't "come-off" anyway...I was interpreted that way. I needn't "Tweak my prose" for anything, check Your paradigm. 


> Lying?  No.  Disingenous?  Yes.  Either that or you fall too easily into a fallacious rhetoric that confuses those who read it.


So I'm either weak in character or stupid. 
Nice.
Who said it never hurts to ask.


> If I'm wrong...then again, tweak your prose.


You Are Wrong.
Tweak your heavily biased, hard-headed,  interpretation.

It's too bad you've turned all sour on me Steve. I truly enjoy your many posts on martial arts issues and feel you are probably a good person...
seems to me you are currently reacting to me in an adversarial way.
for instance: calling someone 'disingenuous', which implies "giving a false appearance of simple frankness"...IS calling someone a liar.
not good.

Your Brother
John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 31, 2004)

_I disagree with those who try to put Kerry in a "gold-digger" frame. It side tracks us from real issues. _ 

Good.  If that's the case, then I misjudged you on that point.

_Personally I think now that you know I'm a Bush supporter you view anything I say with a tainted lens. _ 

I suspect it does have a red tint to my blue, yes.

_I didn't know anything about Sen. Kerry's career in law. I don't care to. _ 

Why ask the question concerning his success as a prosecutor if you don't care?  You say you're asking out of ignorance and now you don't care?

_I'd never heard what his SUCCESS was. I really didn't know how long he was one. I really didn't know what his successes in law were. _ 

Okay.  So you do care.

_Where the hell's this supposed sarcasm? _ 

Sarcasm is implied by tone.  Placing "successful" in quotations as you did (twice in the same sentence), along with what is clearly an expressed political stance against Kerry, preceded by a needless reference to his wife's wealth, strikes me as sarcasm.  Not "tongue in cheek" certainly, nor did it seem to me as being anything more than a rhetorical question.


_It's too bad you've turned all sour on me Steve. I truly enjoy your many posts on martial arts issues and feel you are probably a good person...
seems to me you are currently reacting to me in an adversarial way.
for instance: calling someone 'disingenuous', which implies "giving a false appearance of simple frankness"...IS calling someone a liar._

Not to me.  I've been disingenuous, and didn't think it lying, per se.  It can mean "insincere", "calculating", and it can even be used as a synonym for "naive."  The meaning of the word has been somewhat unstable over the years.

John, if you take all I've said at such a deeply personal level, I truly am sorry.  I didn't think the tenor of my posts was that strong, and I didn't intend to inspire such a heated response nor evoke such personal offense.  I have no problems with YOU, John.  Your rhetoric, maybe.  Your politics, certainly.  I intended this as no reflection on your character.  

That said, I will defend my candidate with vigor.  I consider this election as the most important political event of my lifetime to date, and I take it very seriously. 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 31, 2004)

Brother John -

I, too, think that you tend to float leading questions out there, and then you back off from them, saying, "I never meant to say (he was a gold-digger)!"  I think it's at least a bit disingenuous as well.  

For simple people like me to keep from misinterpreting your intent, please explain more clearly your intent behind some of these questions.  Then we can engage in debate about the issues as I know we all want to, without needless misinterpretation, if that is indeed what is going on.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 31, 2004)

Okay Steve.


> Good.  If that's the case, then I misjudged you on that point.


Thank you. We are all human.


> Why ask the question concerning his success as a prosecutor if you don't care?  You say you're asking out of ignorance and now you don't care?


I didn't word that well, I guess I did want to know about Sen. Kerry's law career, but I hadn't ever cared enough to do the research myself. In asking about his law career I wanted to discuss it, but didn't know enough about it. To me, because there are more basic reasons for me to not vote for him, reasons that wouldn't change one way or the other due to anything that may have occured during his law career...therefore I didn't care to research it. For the sake of trying to contribute to this discussion I kinda wanted a glance at why you thought his law career was so successful.

By using quotation marks around the word "Success" I was merely trying to highlight that the word, in and of it'self doesn't say a whole lot. To be honest, I probably use quotation marks around words repetitively like that in many of my posts....guess I should put some thought into how that's being perceived. I see now that by doing so repetitively it called my intent into question. 


> Not to me.  I've been disingenuous, and didn't think it lying, per se.  It can mean "insincere", "calculating", and it can even be used as a synonym for "naive."  The meaning of the word has been somewhat unstable over the years.


Call it what you like, it certainly isn't 'honest' though is it? 
Let me be frank here, I've got no need nor want to come here and lie to anybody. Maybe you can tell that I'm not the least bit squeemish about butting heads when I need to...it's true. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Sometimes I don't chose my words well. Sometimes I _*"DO THINGS"*_to the words I chose that confuses people or makes them misjudge my intentions... but when I come out and say that "I don't know" ...then I *don't* know.  For instance, I really didn't know that some were attacking his record as a prosecutor. Seems to me that they've got no ammo as his law career WAS a success. Not some super-hero status or anything, but he did well. This medium can be confusing I think. It's difficult to read people... but I wish people knew that I'm rather plain and can generally be taken at face value. I guess it struck me when someone who's posts/ideas/thoughts I've come to respect in other venue's seemed to me to be calling my character into question. Yes, I did take it personally. 


> I have no problems with YOU, John.  Your rhetoric, maybe.  Your politics, certainly.  I intended this as no reflection on your character.


That's actually good to know. I have no problems with you either Steve. Like I said, I really look forward to reading your martial arts views. Your politics, yeah...they go against my grain. But that's a part of us being Americans. It's why we aren't a totalitarian state...we have a system set up to accomodate differing points of view without letting one Dominate the others. Thank you also for saying you aren't taking aim at my character too. I'd hate to have to come look you up in Bloomington and bleed all over your dojang floor.  :whip:   :ultracool  But no, really...it's nice to know you still have some positive regard for me...
even if I am a conservative republican who thinks that George Bush has been doing a fine job. (had to get that one in ya know...)

Your Brother
John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 31, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I'd hate to have to come look you up in Bloomington and bleed all over your dojang floor.
> 
> even if I am a conservative republican who thinks that George Bush has been doing a fine job. (had to get that one in ya know...)
> 
> ...




See...I almost had you turned into a "bleeding heart."


Oh, and Bush is an inept buffoon.

Had to get that in, too, ya know...


Regards,


Steve


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 1, 2004)

Geez, go away for a bit and a maelstrom erupts!!! 

Ok, just to clear up any confusion there is about my feelings towards unions:

1. I feel that the way a good portion of them are set up, people who don't want to work as much get a great deal of benefit. Here are two examples:
A. A lady in the kitchen that I used to work with. She was out for several months over TWO STITCHES. She also fell down a hill, and "broke her back", claiming a lot of disability due to a doctor's note. The union would never let the home I work with send her job description to her doctors. They also refused to let us hire a replacement for her, even on a temporary basis. Because of this, several of my kitchen workers had to share her load. Imagine feeding over 200 people 3 times a day on a short staff. That is NOT fun.
B. One of my old bosses used to work at a local farm equipment manufacturer. This place ranked people by tech levels. There was tech level 1-9, you start at 9, and as you work your way up, and learn more and more, your number gets lower. This means the lower your number, you are able to be assigned more tasks. Within 6 months, he worked his *** off to get up to tech level 2. When layoffs came around, however, he was one of the first to go due to lack of seniority. A great deal of the people who were not laid off were people who had sat around on tech level 8-9 for several years. 

2. I do NOT feel that all unionized teachers are lazy. I've had unionized teachers that worked their butts off for their students. I also had teachers that were lazy, and never cared about the kids being up to snuff. Now, I just want to be sure that the children of this country get teachers who will work to make sure that kids are learning. Yes, this means that the teachers who ARE lazy will have to change their ways. When a teacher works hard, they are to be commended. 

3. I feel that unions DO have a purpose. At times, they do help the workers out. They help secure benefits for their workers. However, I also feel that they should be financially accountable. I can't count the times I've read about a Union chair person who used the workers' dues to fund their country club membership. I think unions should have open books, and be accountable to their workers. 

I hope this clears up any confusion.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 1, 2004)

Even discussing Kerry's "wealth" as a campaign issue is laughable.  What, like Dubya grew up in a cardboard box?  The Bush family is OIL money.  They brush elbows with the Saudi rOIL family for cryin' out loud!  The presidency is one of the few "jobs" Dubya has ever had.  He started (and ruined) oil companies for a "career" in his youth.

This is a non-issue.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> I hope this clears up any confusion.




A bit.

Unions:  There are abuses of the system, certainly.  The reverse would be worse.  In my grandmother's lifetime (indeed, my father's) we've seen horrific working conditions for laborers in the United States.

For a history of labor in the United States I'd recommend "From The Folks That Brought You The Weekend" by Priscilla Murolo and AB Chitty.  The muckraking novel "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is also worth reading.

Today unions work towards safer working environments.  Some are terribly unsafe.  While we read about silly disability claims and see them first hand, we rarely hear about dangers incurred in non-unionized industries.  Migrant workers are getting maimed and killed daily in the meat packing industry.  The very things that ruined Sinclair's protagonists in "The Jungle" are debilitating thousands of Mexicans...and those few Americans that chose to work in these factories.

For THAT read Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation."

Teachers:  You're correct, Deadhand...there are some lazy teachers.  I've seen lazy teachers, lazy Marines, lazy cops, lazy doctors...the list goes on.  Any industry has a range of workers spanning those that are lazy--to the most industrious.   I know of no study showing degrees of laziness in any profession.

My wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's sister-in-law, both my sisters, both my brother's-in-law, my future sister-in-law, my father (for a time), my aunt, and two great-aunts were elementary or high school teachers.  My uncle was an English professor in a small university.

Not one of them qualify as lazy or incompetent.  

You say that when a teacher works hard, they should be commended.  I agree...but note they rarely are ever given credit for their work.  I've mentioned elsewhere how my wife says that should a child in her class fail, she never hears the end of it.  If the child gets an "A", she rarely gets a call or card complimenting her on a job well done.  She's blamed for the children's failures, but the parents take all credit for their children's success when they're bragging about their kids at local cocktail parties.  

If we want teachers of higher quality in this country...WE MUST PAY THEM WELL.  If you want to attract the best and the brightest, make it worth their while.  I know incredibly bright math teachers who could be making triple digit salaries as accountants, but they accepted $25,000 starting salaries because of their commitment to children.  Idealism such as theirs is wonderful.  Idealism, however, doesn't pay a mortgage or feed a family. 

What could we do, then,  if we paid entry level teachers competitive salaries?

And to tie this all together, I end with this:

"State employees with collective bargaining rights earn salaries up to 63 percent higher than their colleagues in states without collective bargaining."

http://www.aft.org/salary/index.htm



Regards,

Steve


----------



## Nightingale (Aug 2, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

This thread has drifted WAY off topic.  Feel free to start a new thread on any other topics, but this thread needs to return to the original topic of "who is your neighbor supporting" rather than the current discussion of Kerry's economic status.  That topic can be re-opened in another thread.

thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 2, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> MT MOD NOTE:
> 
> This thread has drifted WAY off topic. Feel free to start a new thread on any other topics, but this thread needs to return to the original topic of "who is your neighbor supporting" rather than the current discussion of Kerry's economic status. That topic can be re-opened in another thread.
> 
> ...


  That's why I was biting my tongue.


----------

