Accord.
That's because your tax burden is extravagant. You know, "free" health care and all that.


And union membership is dwindling as well. Maybe they could make trees.

You really hate the idea of single payer healthcare. I hope you don't get cancer or you'll be joining the cause of the largest group of personal bankruptcies in America.

The idea that unions are a bad thing is ludicrous. The very corporations you support have created unions to help represent themselves in their dealings with government.
They know that individuals, whether the individual is a working person or a company, cannot succeed against a stronger and more powerfull entity, such as the government or a corporation, without the united front provided by a union of like minded interests.

The little guy cannot beat a corporation in the same way a single corporation cannot beat the government.

But gather the collective will of the workers in a unified entity and a different outcome is inevitable.

We have the resources that the world wants, one of them is oil.

You might want to keep that under wraps... ;)

Please don't tell your friends about us, or where we are, or what we have.
LOL

The idea that unions are a bad thing is ludicrous. The very corporations you support have created unions to help represent themselves in their dealings with government.
They know that individuals, whether the individual is a working person or a company, cannot succeed against a stronger and more powerfull entity, such as the government or a corporation, without the united front provided by a union of like minded interests.

The little guy cannot beat a corporation in the same way a single corporation cannot beat the government.

But gather the collective will of the workers in a unified entity and a different outcome is inevitable.

Unions ARE a bad thing.

examples...

1) Telus union... Telus were going to close 2 offices down and the union said no... how was it resolved? All employees took a cut in regular pay and a huge cut in overtime pay. Some had to get a new job because the lower pay was too little for them to live off.

2)Air Canada union... blocking the first proposed order for new planes so the company now has to wait an extra year for some deliveries.

3)Air Canada union (again)... pilots are forced to fly a cirtain type of aircraft whether they want to or not. Seniority says longer you stay the bigger plane you fly. Dont want to? dont let the door hit you on the way out.


Also with unions you get the union attitude...

"Thats not my job!"
"I'm your supervisor... you do your job like I tell you"
"You'll be promoted when your supervisor quits or retires"

~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Oh no you don't....get on with how well the Canadian economy is doing again.

As for the other anti-union crap...unions do not make business decisions on behalf of the company so everything you've posted is nonsense.

Oh no you don't....get on with how well the Canadian economy is doing again.

As for the other anti-union crap...unions do not make business decisions on behalf of the company so everything you've posted is nonsense.

Please do some homework. All I have posted is 100% true.

Proof of Air Canada's pilots

~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

That's the best you have to excuse your hatred of unions?
The story clearly states that the deal was dependent upon reaching a deal with the union representing pilots.
The company and union didn't reach an understanding and the company cancelled the order.
It wasn't the union blocking the purchase.
Do your homework.

You really hate the idea of single payer healthcare. I hope you don't get cancer or you'll be joining the cause of the largest group of personal bankruptcies in America.

Of course I hate the idea of single payer heathcare. Because it creates an ACTUAL monopoly, one enforced by law. One cannot opt out, one loses all choice, and the lack of competition drives costs up. And one still pays for it, dearly, just indirectly.

The idea that unions are a bad thing is ludicrous. The very corporations you support have created unions to help represent themselves in their dealings with government.
They know that individuals, whether the individual is a working person or a company, cannot succeed against a stronger and more powerfull entity, such as the government or a corporation, without the united front provided by a union of like minded interests.

Uh huh. You should ask the UAW how that GM and Ford "created union," has worked out for their membership numbers over the years. Or ask the BMW created union in Spartanburg how helpful that has been. Oh wait, that's right, there isn't one.

I swear, dem brainiacs ought to get off their asses and get Michael Moore and themselves together and actually build cars in Flint.

What are they waiting for again?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Let me speak in simple terms so you get my meaning.

I was not refering to trade or labour unions in the post you quote.

I am refering to corporations themselves forming unions.

In Canada, the association of CEO's is called the CCCE, (Canadian Council of Chief Executives) and was created to allow industry to speak to government as a union of corporations.Whatever the union/association/country club is called in the US doesn't matter.
What matters is the corporate world, while telling people like you to revile unionism, is in fact using the principles of unionism to achieve their own goals.

A single entity facing a larger and stronger entity (a worker facing the company or a corporation facing the government) has little chance of being heard.
Collectively, the story changes.
A company can easily force a single working person to accept whatever terms they wish to impose.
When facing a collective of thousands, the company suddenly decides that negotiations are the better course of action.

The same works for the corporate world when dealing with the government. Collectively, they have a greater voice.

A quick look at the state of corporate control in both countries will show that it works very well for them.

Of course I hate the idea of single payer heathcare. Because it creates an ACTUAL monopoly, one enforced by law. One cannot opt out, one loses all choice, and the lack of competition drives costs up. And one still pays for it, dearly, just indirectly.

Single payer healthcare DOES NOT create monopolies. What it does do is provide healthcare for everyone while using the purchasing power it holds to provide the very competition you look for.
All of the private hospitals will still be there in your beloved private health system and they can compete till hell freezes.

The only difference will be the elimination of the private insurers, who by my readings, won't be missed by too many citizens.

Oh ya, another difference will be that over 40 million more US citizens will have healthcare.
Tell me again why that's a bad thing?

Let me speak in simple terms so you get my meaning.

Fear not, I haven't seen any evidence that you could speak in anything but simple terms. There's no doubt that most concepts are beyond you as well.

I was not refering to trade or labour unions in the post you quote.

I am refering to corporations themselves forming unions.

In Canada, the association of CEO's is called the CCCE, (Canadian Council of Chief Executives) and was created to allow industry to speak to government as a union of corporations.Whatever the union/association/country club is called in the US doesn't matter.
What matters is the corporate world, while telling people like you to revile unionism, is in fact using the principles of unionism to achieve their own goals.

Voluntary associations are a non-issue. Who cares? Join all of those you want. Form all of them you want. Feel free. The CCCE is a voluntary organization, they can come and go as they wish. More power to them.

The problem would be if X person could not get a job without joining the organization--that is coercive and because it's coercive, it's wrong.

A single entity facing a larger and stronger entity (a worker facing the company or a corporation facing the government) has little chance of being heard.
Collectively, the story changes.
A company can easily force a single working person to accept whatever terms they wish to impose.

Wow, and yet 90% plus of the American working population manages to live in one of the richest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living in the world, all without these eeeevil companies forcing them all to work for pennies.

Why is that do you figure? Why doesn't every employer in the U.S. just decide to pay $0.03 an hour? Better yet, why isn't every single thing on earth just produced in Burkina Faso? I mean, you don't even have to pay them $0.01 an hour, they'll work for two kickings an hour instead of the usual five kickings an hour. Now THAT's a deal.

When facing a collective of thousands, the company suddenly decides that negotiations are the better course of action.

Maybe. Those companies have also overwhelmingly decided that it's much cheaper, easier, and more reliable to just close plants and avoid the unions entirely and use robots, or source their labor offshore. Why? Because unions have priced themselves out of the market, which is why union membership numbers have dropped precipitously.

The same works for the corporate world when dealing with the government. Collectively, they have a greater voice.

Voluntary organizations are of no concern. Free to join, free to leave, non issue.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Single payer healthcare DOES NOT create monopolies.

If it doesn't you actually have to provide reasoning that it doesn't. Not just use capital letters to reiterate your conclusion.

The key term in "single payer" is the term "single," which means "one." That's similar to the important part of the term "monopoly," "mono," which also means "one."

What it does do is provide healthcare for everyone while using the purchasing power it holds to provide the very competition you look for.

Then why couldn't I opt out? Why can't Canadians simply opt out? Why can't those in the UK just opt out?

What it actually does is create a massive monopoly by law. Why is it a monopoly? Because, as noted previously, one cannot opt out of the plan. The consumer loses all choice, not some choice, like the choices between Windows, Mac, and Linux, but all choice. And they are still forced to pay for it, dearly, just indirectly. That is the very definition of a monopoly.

All of the private hospitals will still be there in your beloved private health system and they can compete till hell freezes.

The only difference will be the elimination of the private insurers, who by my readings, won't be missed by too many citizens.

So don't use them. Remove all gov't restrictions on health care and let them fight it out. Let health care providers kill each other like Ford tries to do to GM and like Nokia tries to do to Motorola.

Oh ya, another difference will be that over 40 million more US citizens will have healthcare.
Tell me again why that's a bad thing?

I didn't say it was a bad or a good thing. I didn't address it at all. But since you asked, why aren't you paying for it for them? Even better, why don't they just pay for it themselves?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Wow, and yet 90% plus of the American working population

More accurately, 10% of the population is 'collecting unemployment benefits'... Many more are unemployed... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

This is like talking to Rainman, or mud wrestling with a pig.
I'm invoking the quitter rule

A quitter never wins,
and a winner never quits.
But a guy who never wins and never quits is an idiot.

Carry on.

This is like talking to Rainman, or mud wrestling with a pig.
I'm invoking the quitter rule

A quitter never wins,
and a winner never quits.
But a guy who never wins and never quits is an idiot.

I'll leave the most obvious comment out, however, you are right, it doesn't seem like you would ever win, given that you don't address any of the points being made.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'll leave the most obvious comment out, however, you are right, it doesn't seem like you would ever win, given that you don't address any of the points being made.

I feel that I have answered any and all points.
I also realize that I am of one opinion and you are of another. I see no common ground.

Therefore, as two people with no direct ability to make the necessary changes socially or the ability to change the perspective of the other, this is an simply exercise in frustration.

I have spoken from the perspective of what I believe to be the common good and you come from the perspective of the lone wolf individual.

We evolved as a communal creature, relying on the abilities and skills of others within our group for survival. Shared burdens and responsibilities is the basis of every society.

6.5 billion individuals, each with their own special wants overiding the needs of the others is a recipe for disaster.

You will never change my stand on social issues and it has become painfully apparent that I will never change yours.

If this stalemate causes you to raise your fist in victory...enjoy.

You will never change my stand on social issues and it has become painfully apparent that I will never change yours.

Welcome to my camp... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

You will never change my stand on social issues and it has become painfully apparent that I will never change yours.

Welcome to my camp... ;)

yours alone? ;)

---

Account frozen...

I feel that I have answered any and all points.

Then your feelings are in error. Most of the time you simply repeated your conclusions, in fact, in one spot you repeated it and added a few words in capital letters. That isn't reasoning, it's repetition.

I also realize that I am of one opinion and you are of another. I see no common ground.

The difference being that I don't need you for my ideas. I would never force you to play along with my ideas. With yours, you have no choice, you have to force me to play (or pay) or your ideas go bankrupt.

Therefore, as two people with no direct ability to make the necessary changes socially or the ability to change the perspective of the other, this is an simply exercise in frustration.

Given your answers and equivocation so far, your readers can easily see why you would be frustrated. Conversely, I am not frustrated at all, it's simply a discussion.

I have spoken from the perspective of what I believe to be the common good and you come from the perspective of the lone wolf individual.

Your belief fails you. For example, restricting the ability of members of a community to obtain a job because it has been reserved for members of some union harms the common good because it benefits a small minority (union members) at the expense of everyone else. That does not benefit the common good at all.

We evolved as a communal creature, relying on the abilities and skills of others within our group for survival. Shared burdens and responsibilities is the basis of every society.

6.5 billion individuals, each with their own special wants overiding the needs of the others is a recipe for disaster.

Of course, neither of these have any bearing on what I or Robert have discussed with you. Neither has any application because neither him or I are against shared burdens, nor did we suggest that anyone's needs override the needs of others. Your inability to discern this suggests that you truly don't understand what you read, which does not bode well for your credibility in such discussions

You will never change my stand on social issues and it has become painfully apparent that I will never change yours.

You had better hope that you do, as people like me remove more and more of our assets from your ability to steal them. Rest assured, Thorin or the UAW will never provide your precious union members with the jobs they so desperately need. They certainly seem incapable of providing those jobs for themselves.

If this stalemate causes you to raise your fist in victory...enjoy.

No, but I did laugh out loud at your choice of the word "stalemate."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Conversely, I am not frustrated at all

If that were true, your 'sidekick' would find himself out of a job... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

You can wrestle in the mud with a pig forever...or until you realize that he simply enjoys it more than you do.

I knew that by pulling out, I was in for the obvious and predictable end zone dance.

All that is proven is that you like to argue endlessly.

It's fruitless.