quote Originally posted by Tugboat: The problem is, you attacked me without knowing a thing about me. Again, if you treated me like that as an employee, I would not be very motivated to do a good job. The last job I worked on, we turned sheets of melamine worth a few bucks into hundred dollar cabinets. I think we made the company a whole lot more than the $10/hr they paid us. They grossed 2 million the year before I left. 25 employees total. A friend who I met when I started there is still there and making $10/hr. If you're not family or friends with the shop boss or someone in the office, forget it. The floor in the shop got really slick from too much sealer being used on the concrete. Where there were high traffic areas (around benches) it got treacherous. Something got done about it the day after I suggested it was a lawsuit waiting to happen. GL

I never attacked you. I think you took one line out of the whole initial post and took offense to it, (which wasn't even meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that your stance with most workers puts you in that catagory)
I still don't get how so many of you can not see the point. It's purely an assumption on Bill's part that the bank chose the lowest bidder. Show me proof of that. And then, when you produce that proof, show me where the bank doesn't have the RIGHT to choose the lowest bidder, or where they don't have the right to charge 35 for an overdraft instead of 25. And then show me where you (or he) don't have the right to CHOOSE ANOTHER BANK. That's the problem here, everyone wants the OTHER GUY (or company in the case of this topic) to make a change. You don't want to take any risks, by quitting your jobs, and going after something better. No, instead, go after the company, make it harder for them to do business, and then cry when they pull up and leave town, or fold altogether.
OK, so the cabinet shop made 2 million bucks. So what? Don't they have a RIGHT to make 2 million bucks? If your friend doesn't like helping them make all that money, then he should quit and find another job. He probably doesn't want to take the risk. But what happens to that company if it folds? Does he really lose anything aside from his job? How about the owner of the company? Do you think he just walks away from a company like that with no loss of his own? Do you think he's still not responsible for all his liabilities? Do you have any clue what kind of debts a company operates with? This is the problem, the average worker has no IDEA what it takes to run a company, and doesn't respect the risks involved with running a business. And further doesn't believe the owner has a right to profit handsomely for the risks he takes!
You wouldn't think I would have this attutude, I was an "unskilled" laborer for YEARS! I worked at an electrical control company for a couple of years. I made barely 12k a year, and was making more than some of the guys who had been there longer than me. I knew that was unfair, but I took it, I was willing to earn it. I watched my measly paycheck every other week, budgeting and struggling, while the owner drove in to work in his new Caddy, and the salesman in his new Chrysler, and my boss in his new LeBaron, while me and the other guys drove our rusted junkers, unable to afford anything better. But you know what? I didn't have to work there, I chose to. I got fed up when one day, I walked in, and told him I had met a guy who needed some industrail controls made. I put him in touch with the guy, and I saw the job, easily worth a couple hundred grand move through the shop. I approached the owner about a finders fee....he informed me that I wouldn't get a fee, to just consider it "job security". I told him it wasn't my job to find work, that he paid others substantially more to ensure my security. That';s when I got fed up and quit. But you know what, that was his right to do that. Yes, I resented it, but I decided the strongest message I could send was to quit. Which I did in short order. I don't hold him to blame, he was the boss, and could do what he wanted. If the other guys in the shop didn't like it there, they shouldn't ***** , they should quit. What better message to send...
But no...most people don't want to change themselves, or risk anything, they just want everyone else to conform to them, while they remain safe. Everyone talks about "no balls, no blue chips". I guess most people don't think that really applies except when it's convenient.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: More proof that you don't know much about business, MrBill. If you had to hire an outside firm to help you do something, wouldn't *you* go with a low bidder? Wouldn't *you* want to save your company money? If it was you, and your small company, the extra money you'd pay would come right out of your pocket. That's not greed, is it? The priciples apply the same way to large companies. Too bad you don't understand that. Quit blaming everyone else for your problems. Maybe *you* didn't do a good enough job selling that bank on your abilities and why they should have paid you more. That's not their fault, that's not the president's fault, that's the competitive marketplace. The other guy won. Get over it, and spend your time trying to find another job instead of finding people to blame. Sheesh.

Well Mr Bowel Mouth.

I would go with the company MOST qualified to do the job. I'm not looking to get a year end bonus for coming in under budget. Then again THAT is probably why I am not manager material.. I don't know how to say "faster, better, cheaper" when it comes to IT support. My motto is "if it's 5 years old it should have been replaced atleast three years ago" but that mean spending money.

Why don't you get some potty training instead of crapping all over the submit reply button?

I'm really beginning to think you are enjoying this and I find it irritating.

quote Originally posted by ED's85GT: I usually don't get into this political discussions. But could you explain to me, how can the president of the US stop XYZ INC. from not wanting to pay me $15.00/hour plus benefits when they would rather pay someone in X country $1.00/hour no benefits with no OSHA, no EPA, no worker's COMP Etc. Etc. Global Market/Economy, XYZ inc has got to reduce their overhead in order to survive. PS: No flames intended, I would like to hear your ideas.

The Democratic party platform , as reported in todays Orlando (FL) Sentinel ....."proposes to halve the nations deficet in four years.It proposes TAX CUTS for most businesses, but elemination of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas."

In addition, "the platform proposes 40,000 additional troops for active duty duty worldwide, and a doubling of special forces to ease the burden the war has placed on the National Guard and Reserves. The Guards primary mission, the party says, should be homeland security."

This increase in military spending will help stimulate the economy and create jobs- IMO.

(edited for spelling)

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Well Mr Bowel Mouth.

Useless insult.

quote I would go with the company MOST qualified to do the job. I'm not looking to get a year end bonus for coming in under budget. Then again THAT is probably why I am not manager material.. I don't know how to say "faster, better, cheaper" when it comes to IT support. My motto is "if it's 5 years old it should have been replaced atleast three years ago" but that mean spending money.

More proof you don't seem to have the ability to run a business, but have no problem bitching at others who do and blaming them for your situation.

quote Why don't you get some potty training instead of crapping all over the submit reply button?

Yet another useless insult. Who is the potty mouth?

quote I'm really beginning to think you are enjoying this and I find it irritating.

I'd like to get you to think about true solutions, instead of playing the blame game. When you resort to stupid insults, instead of dealing with the problem, then yes, I enjoy making fun of you. Besides, it is sooooo easy.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'd like to get you to think about true solutions, instead of playing the blame game. When you resort to stupid insults, instead of dealing with the problem, then yes, I enjoy making fun of you. Besides, it is sooooo easy.

Yeah, so sorry I hold you accountable for the crap that comes out of your keyboard.

I could swear that just yesterday you were ignoring me and now you follow me into another thread ans start badgering me all over again.. Your like the queenbitch from hell always looking to get slapped arround because you like it. Well, I think you are a moron.

I just dont get what your beef is with me but fine enjoy and while you are at it, enjoy the negative, once again you earned it.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Yeah, so sorry I hold you accountable for the crap that comes out of your keyboard.

Kind of like I'm doing to you? Funny how things are when the shoe is on the other foot.

quote I could swear that just yesterday you were ignoring me and now you follow me into another thread ans start badgering me all over again.. Your like the queenbitch from hell always looking to get slapped arround because you like it. Well, I think you are a moron.

When your B.S. reaches critical mass, I flip the "ignore MrBill" switch. Time to hit it again.

quote I just dont get what your beef is with me but fine enjoy and while you are at it, enjoy the negative, once again you earned it.

Of course you don't get it. That's the point.

(back to ignore MrBill mode)

quote Originally posted by fierobear: OK, so they supported the war, then they are against the war, then they want to bolster our forces in the war. They criticized additional military spending, now they want to increase military spending. Oh, man, the irony...and their position shifts are making me dizzy.

You're the only making yourself dizzy. They supported the war because Bush and co manipulated intelligence to create a reason for going to war, if you didn't support it you were unpatriotic and unamerican remember. After lies and crap hits the fan I don't blame them for going against the war, but guess what we're knee deep in it so it's best to supporting it even thought there are disagreements on why we went.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: You're the only making yourself dizzy. They supported the war because Bush and co manipulated intelligence to create a reason for going to war, if you didn't support it you were unpatriotic and unamerican remember. After lies and crap hits the fan I don't blame them for going against the war, but guess what we're knee deep in it so it's best to supporting it even thought there are disagreements on why we went.

My point is, you either believe in your convictions or you don't. The democrats present the image that they can't take a stand for anything, even if it is unpopular at the time. It's called "waffling" and it doesn't impress me.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: My point is, you either believe in your convictions or you don't. The democrats present the image that they can't take a stand for anything, even if it is unpopular at the time. It's called "waffling" and it doesn't impress me.

Only speaking for myself here, But often in my personal life I may take a position on an issue, and then later when I learn more, or when I find the original information was incorrect, I may change my position. Its not waffling, its LEARNING and improving. COULD it possibly the same for the more progressive and inclusive party, the Democrats?

"those who fail to learn from historys' mistakes are condemned to repeat them"

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Only speaking for myself & 84Bill here, But often in my personal life I may take a position on an issue, and then later when I learn more, or when I find the original information was incorrect, I may change my position. Its not waffling, its LEARNING and improving. COULD it possibly the same for the more progressive and inclusive party, the Democrats? "those who fail to learn from historys' mistakes are condemned to repeat them"

Bravo.
To live is to waffe, only the dead cease to breath.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Only speaking for myself here, But often in my personal life I may take a position on an issue, and then later when I learn more, or when I find the original information was incorrect, I may change my position. Its not waffling, its LEARNING and improving. COULD it possibly the same for the more progressive and inclusive party, the Democrats?

I can buy changing once, but twice? That seems like too much.

Inclusive? Only if you agree with them.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I can buy changing once, but twice? That seems like too much. Inclusive? Only if you agree with them.

Change is a good thing, given the right situation. Some cave man discovered fire, and that changed the way he and his band of followers saw the world. Would you live in the dark, because "thats we way we alwys did it before?" What about flight? People thought that was ungodly.
Comon over to the side that wants to move forward and learn from the past, without becoming mired in it. We have plenty of room for lots of different people, and you DON'T have to follow the hard and fast line like the other major party.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I never attacked you. I think you took one line out of the whole initial post and took offense to it, (which wasn't even meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that your stance with most workers puts you in that catagory) I still don't get how so many of you can not see the point. It's purely an assumption on Bill's part that the bank chose the lowest bidder. Show me proof of that. And then, when you produce that proof, show me where the bank doesn't have the RIGHT to choose the lowest bidder, or where they don't have the right to charge 35 for an overdraft instead of 25. And then show me where you (or he) don't have the right to CHOOSE ANOTHER BANK. That's the problem here, everyone wants the OTHER GUY (or company in the case of this topic) to make a change. You don't want to take any risks, by quitting your jobs, and going after something better. No, instead, go after the company, make it harder for them to do business, and then cry when they pull up and leave town, or fold altogether. OK, so the cabinet shop made 2 million bucks. So what? Don't they have a RIGHT to make 2 million bucks? If your friend doesn't like helping them make all that money, then he should quit and find another job. He probably doesn't want to take the risk. But what happens to that company if it folds? Does he really lose anything aside from his job? How about the owner of the company? Do you think he just walks away from a company like that with no loss of his own? Do you think he's still not responsible for all his liabilities? Do you have any clue what kind of debts a company operates with? This is the problem, the average worker has no IDEA what it takes to run a company, and doesn't respect the risks involved with running a business. And further doesn't believe the owner has a right to profit handsomely for the risks he takes! You wouldn't think I would have this attutude, I was an "unskilled" laborer for YEARS! I worked at an electrical control company for a couple of years. I made barely 12k a year, and was making more than some of the guys who had been there longer than me. I knew that was unfair, but I took it, I was willing to earn it. I watched my measly paycheck every other week, budgeting and struggling, while the owner drove in to work in his new Caddy, and the salesman in his new Chrysler, and my boss in his new LeBaron, while me and the other guys drove our rusted junkers, unable to afford anything better. But you know what? I didn't have to work there, I chose to. I got fed up when one day, I walked in, and told him I had met a guy who needed some industrail controls made. I put him in touch with the guy, and I saw the job, easily worth a couple hundred grand move through the shop. I approached the owner about a finders fee....he informed me that I wouldn't get a fee, to just consider it "job security". I told him it wasn't my job to find work, that he paid others substantially more to ensure my security. That';s when I got fed up and quit. But you know what, that was his right to do that. Yes, I resented it, but I decided the strongest message I could send was to quit. Which I did in short order. I don't hold him to blame, he was the boss, and could do what he wanted. If the other guys in the shop didn't like it there, they shouldn't ***** , they should quit. What better message to send... But no...most people don't want to change themselves, or risk anything, they just want everyone else to conform to them, while they remain safe. Everyone talks about "no balls, no blue chips". I guess most people don't think that really applies except when it's convenient.

Here is the problem. You never attacked me?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: See, your propblem is, that you want to government to protect you from everything. There's already WAY too much government involvement in private enterprise as it is. You and most others want the government to basically guarentee that you'll have a job. You don't want to actually work for anything, or have any risk. You want the employer to take all the risks, and incur all the costs, while you ask for longer coffee breaks

From above: "You don't want to take any risks, by quitting your jobs, and going after something better. No, instead, go after the company, make it harder for them to do business, and then cry when they pull up and leave town, or fold altogether."

Pure hubris, and quite insulting. And you don't even realize it. No wonder you couldn't motivate anyone.

BTW, I notice you didn't like having YOUR overtime taken. Remember, some people (like nurses) have a great deal invested in education. Changing careers isn't that easy then.

I posted what the cabinet shop made because you put forth the notion that workers aren't worth their pay. Without workers the company makes nothing. And I'm not there anymore because I didn't like the pay, so go pound sand.

GL

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Change is a good thing, given the right situation. Some cave man discovered fire, and that changed the way he and his band of followers saw the world. Would you live in the dark, because "thats we way we alwys did it before?" What about flight? People thought that was ungodly.

I think that analogy is stretching it. I'm all for progress, but that's not the issue. The issue is when the Democrats change the course and position so many times, that it's tough to know where Kerry and company really stand.

quote Comon over to the side that wants to move forward and learn from the past, without becoming mired in it. We have plenty of room for lots of different people, and you DON'T have to follow the hard and fast line like the other major party.

The funny thing is, I'm not a staunch, party line, die hard Republican. I'm more of a middle-of-the-road, liberaterian (as in a supporter of liberty and freedom, as opposed to socialist control), pragmatist. In this country, there are basically two choices - the Republicans and the Democrats. I find the Democratic platform is too far toward the Socialist part of the spectrum for my liking.

The other factor is that, the more the liberals/democrats push me, the more I push back, which makes me sound like a die-hard republican.

I was talking to someone (might have been on the forum) that brought up a magnificent, thought-provoking point - it's not so much about Republican vs. Democrat, or conservative vs. liberal, the *real* issue is freedom vs. control. I'm for freedom. Elements of both the Republicans and Democrats seem to be opting for control over freedom (albeit using different methods, the end result is more control over our lives), and I'm against more government control.

Some say the patriot act would violate the principles of freedom, but at times like these, you must do *something* to counterract the actions of terrorism. Somewhere, there must be a balance. I don't see voting for Kerry as a legitimate vote for freedom, so for me, that's not the answer.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: From above: "You don't want to take any risks, by quitting your jobs, and going after something better. No, instead, go after the company, make it harder for them to do business, and then cry when they pull up and leave town, or fold altogether." Pure hubris, and quite insulting. And you don't even realize it. No wonder you couldn't motivate anyone. BTW, I notice you didn't like having YOUR overtime taken. Remember, some people (like nurses) have a great deal invested in education. Changing careers isn't that easy then. I posted what the cabinet shop made because you put forth the notion that workers aren't worth their pay. Without workers the company makes nothing. And I'm not there anymore because I didn't like the pay, so go pound sand. GL

Hubris? Maybe from your position, most likely arising from a lack of experience. I've been in your position as a "laborer". You ever owned a business or had employees? If you pay attention to people who actually have experience in an area, you might learn something. Even if you don't like what they're telling you. You can try and slam me by critisizing my managerial skills, which you have no knowledge of (a little hubris on your part there? You might want to avoid what you criticize in others, it makes you a hypocrite.) Until you have the experience, you're just talking out of your azz. Why am I not surprised that yet again, you're trying to lay all the responsibility for a persons poor work ethics on the company. Maybe it makes me unfair to expect a person to be responsible for themselves and their own actions.
I know you still don't get it. It's OK, I recognize why.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 07-12-2004).]

How does my point of view change your presumtiousness? You act like you know me when you have NO FREAKING CLUE!!! You don't even seem to understand your insults, basically calling me a lazy slob. (Edit: )Then you turn around and say "Guys like you and me,...". Then you attacked me again.

I started out saying IF you acted like that, but it became clear you don't know that you ARE acting like that. I wouldn't work for you if you were the last employer on earth.

It is a two way street and if you expect to have people do good work you have to provide decent pay and working conditions. Including a little respect.

Edit: BTW, you're the one who said you couldn't get people to work.

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-12-2004).]

The Dems are changing their position as the realities of the war in Iraq and the needs of the military change. maybe it gives the impression they are waffling, but if you really examine it they are not.

First they favored the war. Thats a fine position. Bush convinced everyone he was out for WMD's, and Saddam post a real and immediate threat to the US due to his stock of WMD's. At the time, the Dems were in favor of war as a last resort, and many didn't feel Bush gave the inspections enough time. They ok'd the war in congress, but they were not universally pleased how it went down. That goes for many rebuplicans too. (Did they waffle?)

Later, they turned against the war, based on new findings. First was the lack of any WMD's in Iraq. They were sold on the plan because Saddam was a real and immediate threat. Suddenly they felt he was not. Now they saw the US spending the lives of our soldiers to remove the government of a country that was not an immediate threat to us. A lot of peoples children have died over there, and suddenly the democrats no longer saw a good reason.

Now, they do not support it, at least the reasoning behind it. However, they have to support some kind of mission over there because the stakes are high. Thats not waffling, but the reality of the situation. The Dems still do not like the fact we went to war, but they understand pulling out now would be a catastrophic disaster. It would basically turn Iraq over to fundamentalists and Al Quieda, creating a haven for terrorists that would make Afghanistan look like a playschool. So they must support a continued presence over there to try and create a stable government (Democratic or otherwise) that will not allow terrorists to operate over there.

They are also in favor of increasing the size of the military, which is generally not something the democrats would do. However, again, that is built out of the reality of the situation. The military, particularly the army, is stretched extremely thin. Constant use of the Selected Reserves, and now use of the Individual Ready Reserves (Inactive reserves) as well as delaying discharges is placing a huge strain on the army, and biting into troop morale. We just do not have a big enough Army to meet our worldwide commitments. A long term solution might be to have less of those commitments, but that won't happen tomorrow. So the dems want to add to the size of the Army to help ease the burden on the troops in the field as well as the burden on the reserves.

Whether someone likes or dislikes the democrats, I think they should see them as trying to be flexible to the situation as it develops. Its not just waffling.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: My point is, you either believe in your convictions or you don't. The democrats present the image that they can't take a stand for anything, even if it is unpopular at the time. It's called "waffling" and it doesn't impress me.

Well, if the ship is sinking, even though you may have launched it, do you want the captain to go down with it or attempt to make corrections? Is it considered to be a person that has convictions if the stand on the port side and go under, or is that stupid and inflexible.

So the war on Iraq, at the time our intelligence supposedly gave what is now known as erroneous info, now we know that to be erroneous, so do we, "STAY THE COURSE" (gag - I hate that expression) or adjust our reactions to meet the new information and make changes? Being closed-minded is just that, it's not being realistic. Being closed-minded worked in the 1920's, as things didn't change that much, but in these contemporary times it is lethal. Closed-minded thinking is what leads to Monarchical forms of government.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Why not 50 times if the situation warrants it. Maybe never if the situation warrants it. The words, "always" and "never" lead to rigid thinking, which leads to tyranny if applied to a government. If you drive your car and state you're oly going to make 1 correction, we know the result. Life is like that and you need to continually make adjustments. Being rigid doesn't mean being strong, it means being stubborn. This assimilation the Repubs try to make of being rigid is equal to being tough, so the ferry Dem Party are woosies is crap. It doesn't work with me, and I look around and see many tough Dems.

We aren't talking about driving down the road. We are talking about one issue - terrorism and how to deal with it. Your response reads just like the Democratic party resposes - muddled, with poor example, and a position that twists whichever way the wind is blowing.

The issue here is us vs. terrorism. You can debate whether Iraq should have been attacked under that banner, but the current administration has been quite clear on their stand. They took the fight TO THEM (at least in Afghanistan). The Democrats? For, against, for. I don't see how flexibility in the middle of such an objective is a positive thing. You either go find them, and take the fight to them, or you don't.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The funny thing is, I'm not a staunch, party line, die hard Republican. I'm more of a middle-of-the-road, liberaterian pragmatist. In this country, there are basically two choices - the Republicans and the Democrats. The other factor is that, the more the liberals/democrats push me, the more I push back, which makes me sound like a die-hard republican. I was talking to someone (might have been on the forum) that brought up a magnificent, thought-provoking point - it's not so much about Republican vs. Democrat, or conservative vs. liberal, the *real* issue is freedom vs. control. I'm for freedom. Elements of both the Republicans and Democrats seem to be opting for control over freedom (albeit using different methods, the end result is more control over our lives), and I'm against more government control.

"(as in a supporter of liberty and freedom, as opposed to socialist control), "

The funny thing is that the Conservs cast votes/make laws that are contrary to liberty. It's is quite obvious that Libertarian are disgruntled Republicans. Their platforms are very like, with the Libertarians deviating from it slightly. Do I need to post/cite US Sup Ct decisions that past or current US Sup Cts have issued? In the Warren Court, decisions like Mapp vs. Ohio, Miranda VS Arizona, Terry vs Ohio and many others were made to outline a system of liberty from government oppression. Since then the 4th has been trashed to a minimal document; all the gov has to say now is that the person was a suspected terorrist and no warrant requirement is neccessary in many cases. Before, the cops couldn't cross the threshold of your doorway absent exigent circumstances (lady screaming rape inside your house), now they can enter to remove all people for the preservation of evidence. Point is that securing a conviction is more important than personal liberty.

This socialist control you speak of would redistribute more tax money to the poor, but would restore many personal protections.

"I find the Democratic platform is too far toward the Socialist part of the spectrum for my liking."

From what I know of the Libertarian platform, they think all social needs should go through the church. This is nuts. It's a convenient answer-all to think the church can handle everyone's ills, but it's beyond utopian. What happens of a person needs dialysis that would cost 100's of thousands? Three hail Mary's and let em die. The Libertarian platform sounds neat in some ways, but it ignores most medical needs which are the bulk of welfare when you consider the elderly. Libertarianism is Darwinianism on steroids.

"Some say the patriot act would violate the principles of freedom, but at times like these, you must do *something* to counterract the actions of terrorism. Somewhere, there must be a balance. I don't see voting for Kerry as a legitimate vote for freedom, so for me, that's not the answer."

An intelligent conversation would include things like, "Why are they doing this (motive)." Could it be our involvement with Israel, amongst other reasons? These terorrists don't comit acts of terror in Scandinavia to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, I just have never heard of it.

Vote for freedom not Kerry? Even if you think Bush is doing a great job in Iraq, which would be minority opinion, freedom goes far beyond international measure; it is more about internal controls. Do you think Bush has made America a more free country internally? And why?

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: So the war on Iraq, at the time our intelligence supposedly gave what is now known as erroneous info, now we know that to be erroneous, so do we, "STAY THE COURSE" (gag - I hate that expression) or adjust our reactions to meet the new information and make changes? Being closed-minded is just that, it's not being realistic. Being closed-minded worked in the 1920's, as things didn't change that much, but in these contemporary times it is lethal. Closed-minded thinking is what leads to Monarchical forms of government.

Not staying the course in the middle of a war leads to the very thing that many Democrats are complaining about - that Iraq has or will become another Viet Nam. I've already noticed that words like "Viet Nam" and "quagmire" are thrown out to support their push to make people think that Iraq has already become another Viet Nam. I'd prefer that they find ways to support our efforts there, rather than try to undermine them.

quote Originally posted by fierobear:

"We aren't talking about driving down the road. We are talking about one issue - terrorism and how to deal with it."

Silly me, here I thought we were talking about the:

"Job growth by president"

"Your response reads just like the Democratic party resposes - muddled, with poor example, and a position that twists whichever way the wind is blowing."

And yours like a typical Republican response; metaphor and analogy while ducking every issue and thinking no one notices.

"The issue here is us vs. terrorism. You can debate whether Iraq should have been attacked under that banner, but the current administration has been quite clear on their stand. They took the fight TO THEM (at least in Afghanistan). The Democrats? For, against, for. I don't see how flexibility in the middle of such an objective is a positive thing. You either go find them, and take the fight to them, or you don't."

This sounds like my dad - shouting this singular issue while pounding the table. Hey, if you have character and the ability to answer the issues above, go ahead. If not, keep ducking, keep running, keep misdirecting. Hey, I gave you an issue for which you can use to misdirect; say, "character, let's talk about Clinton and the dress if you want to talk character." There, in case you couldn't misdirect with your own information.

You made reference to waffling vs not, so my response was foundational to the notion of flexibility. If you don’t want to answer it, fine, just ignore it. But by this form of misdirection you appear unable to respond.

The issue isn't about driving, but it isn't about waffles either. The English language uses all kinds of antonyms, synonyms, metaphor and analogy; I wasn’t talking about driving either, I was using it as an analogy to explain why corrections are necessary. You know this, you just had no answer.

[This message has been edited by I'm Back (edited 07-12-2004).]

Ummm, what does "no exit strategy mean", Dad?

GL

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: "We aren't talking about driving down the road. We are talking about one issue - terrorism and how to deal with it." Silly me, here I thought we were talking about the: "Job growth by president"

Well, we were. The thread drifted onto Republicans vs. Democrats, like it almost always does.

quote And yours like a typical Republican response; metaphor and analogy while ducking every issue and thinking no one notices.

What metaphors? What analogy? I got right to the point - like it or not, we are at war and the current administration had a clear objective and stayed the course. The Democrats changed their position, and are criticising the war for political gain. I'm not sure how much more clear and direct I could have made it.

quote This sounds like my dad - shouting this singular issue while pounding the table. Hey, if you have character and the ability to answer the issues above, go ahead. If not, keep ducking, keep running, keep misdirecting. Hey, I gave you an issue for which you can use to misdirect; say, "character, let's talk about Clinton and the dress if you want to talk character." There, in case you couldn't misdirect with your own information.

There was no misdirection, ducking or running. The administration is doing what it must, and the Democrats are opposing it because they want the oval office. You accuse me of ducking, running and misdirecting because doing so is an attempt to undermine my position and support yours.

quote You made reference to waffling vs not, so my response was foundational to the notion of flexibility. If you don’t want to answer it, fine, just ignore it. But by this form of misdirection you appear unable to respond. The issue isn't about driving, but it isn't about waffles either. The English language uses all kinds of antonyms, synonyms, metaphor and analogy; I wasn’t talking about driving either, I was using it as an analogy to explain why corrections are necessary. You know this, you just had no answer.

OK, so it's alright for you to use analogy, but I cannot? I just need to know the rules here. Evidently, they are different for you and I.

I had no answer? My answer was clear, concise and to the point. You say it's no answer because it's not what you want to hear. That's not my problem.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Ummm, what does "no exit strategy mean", Dad? GL

Dad: It's one uh them artsy-fartsy concepts where you actually poke yer head up every now and then. Don't do it, wouldn't be prudent, not gonna do it.

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: How does my point of view change your presumtiousness? You act like you know me when you have NO FREAKING CLUE!!! You don't even seem to understand your insults, basically calling me a lazy slob. (Edit: )Then you turn around and say "Guys like you and me,...". Then you attacked me again. I started out saying IF you acted like that, but it became clear you don't know that you ARE acting like that. I wouldn't work for you if you were the last employer on earth. It is a two way street and if you expect to have people do good work you have to provide decent pay and working conditions. Including a little respect. Edit: BTW, you're the one who said you couldn't get people to work.

Dude, quit acting like such a whiny little girl. You're obsessing. You just *want* to be defensive. You're recalling over and over the one line, and ignoring the balance of what I've said. Including the parts that praise your willingness to work. My assertion is that your attitude puts you among the RANKS of the lazy slobs who want everything for nothing.Your apparent attitude is that of a typical laborer. I said it before, if you're actually willing to EARN what you're given, then that makes you an exception. Which is exactly my point with regard to this topic. Only you're so busy being a victim because you feel like I said something disparaging that the core of the discussion has been lost. And if you think my experiences don't give me an advantage, then you're not very objective, either.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Dude, quit acting like such a whiny little girl. You're obsessing. You just *want* to be defensive. You're recalling over and over the one line, and ignoring the balance of what I've said. Including the parts that praise your willingness to work. My assertion is that your attitude puts you among the RANKS of the lazy slobs who want everything for nothing.Your apparent attitude is that of a typical laborer. I said it before, if you're actually willing to EARN what you're given, then that makes you an exception. Which is exactly my point with regard to this topic. Only you're so busy being a victim because you feel like I said something disparaging that the core of the discussion has been lost. And if you think my experiences don't give me an advantage, then you're not very objective, either.

One line?!? You just don't quit!!!!

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I know you still don't get it. It's OK, I recognize why.

I give up.

Edit: Sorry it's too much to expect decent pay and working conditions.

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-12-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Edit: Sorry it's too much to expect decent pay and working conditions.

Finally, back to the subject matter....

OK, let's take a rational look at your comment. Decent pay and working conditions. OK, fair enough. How can we ensure people get those things? Let's look at "working conditions" first.
My problem with all the government involvement with working conditions is that it costs comapnies boatloads of money to protect people from themselves. And really, a small quantity of common sense on the part of an employee would make most OSHA regualtions uneccessary, since 90% of the OSHA regs ARE nothing more than common sense guidlines. Think about it for a second. Let's try a hypothetical scenario:
A guy working at a JiffyLube is walking along, and spots an oil spill on the floor and walks around it. Someone else comes along behind him, slips in the spill, and busts their hump. Instant lawsuit, just add oil and stupidity. I have three questions. 1.Why did guy number one just walk around it and not clean it up? 2.Why didn't person two notice it and clean it up? 3. Why should the company be held personally responsible because persons one and two were both airheads? So what has to happen here? The company has to impliment and monitor rules and regulations to guide those two people because they're too lazy to clean up the oil, or pay attention to their surroundings. Then, the company has to hire a safety director, who monitors the rules and makes sure they're being followed. The laws are so complicated that he has to have a legal background, and knowledge of OSHA rules and regs. (Which if you aren't familiar with them, they're extensive) Since the person for this position has to have a decent education and experience, they have to attach a six figure salary. And since they're a national chain, way too much for one guy, they have to hire say, fifty of these people, one to cover each state. Which is alot for each person, but we'll try to keep it simple. So then you have 50 people, each making say, 100k a year. That's $5,000000 in salaries, but since it costs a company almost twice a person's pay to have them as an employee, that's actually closer to 10,000000. Now the company wants to make sure these guys do a good job, so they impliment a bonus program. Let's say they pay a percentage of their base salary based on how low they keep the accident rate. So some of these guys might get, 20, 30, even 40 grand in bonuses, becasue they saved the company millions by preventing accidents and keeping lawsuits to a minimum. So now, the employees get wind of these bonuses, and feel slighted, because they are the ones who didn't get hurt. They're pissed. But really, do they have any right to be? Remember the beginning of the scenario? If guy one had taken some initiative from the start, and cleaned up the mess, or person two had been paying attention, then the safety director position would be unneccessary to begin with. But since neither person was willing to be responsible (have you ever heard a person say; "it's not MY job"?) the company had to hire people to be responsible. So my position is, why isn't the average employee willing to ensure they have a safe working environment by CREATING it themselves by using some common sense, and taking a little initiative? Simple. Becasue the average working American is lazy, and doesn't WANT to be responsible. All they care about is their paycheck. (And before you jump on me about a bunch of stuff like building maintenance and stuff like that...keep in mind, that's not the portion of the working environment I'm talking about here....that's a seperate issue)
Now take that scenario, and multiply it by however many positions you can think of, that could be eliminated if the average worker would just be willing to use some common sense. Or by any of the positions that have had to be created to protect a company from lawsuits, since most lawsuits are the result of carelessness on the part of the (or an) employee.
Now, how about the pay? OK, well, seems to me, if a company is able to save 10,000,000 by not having to hire a bunch of safety directors, then they could afford to pay more. But there's more too. Don't you realize that in a free market, the value of a comodity will be set by it's worth, or percieved value? When unions interfere, they force a company to pay an amount, not based on a value established by a free market, but an amount that stresses a companies finances to the breaking point. However much the unions and workers think they can coerce without sending the company belly-up, putting everyone out of work. Then those costs are passed on to the consumer. Which of course depending on the product, can stimulate shifts in the entire economy.
Of course, this is a hugely simplified scenario. I have no idea what safety directors make, or how many might be hired to cover a given territory or anything about JiffyLube. I'm merely drawing an example of what happens within a company. And really, depending on the size, and kind of company, there could be hundreds or thousands of these positions, that wouldn't be needed, if the typical American worker had a better work ethic.
If you want more, think about how many people sue the company they work for, for all KINDS of things. Where do you think that money comes from? Don't you think that an employee who sues JiffyLube when they slip and bust their ass has an effect on how much the other employees make in an indirect way? And how fair is it that the company be held liable anyway? Just because a court might find in favor of a party doesn't make it fair or reasonable. If I come to your house uninvited, and trip on your sidewalk and break my arm, you're liable for that. I could sue you. Seems the same to me, equally unfair. Only, I wouldn't sue you. Because I take responsibility for myself. Be honest, most people just don't...and those are the people who work for companies across the country. That woman who sued McD's for the hot coffee is the type of person who fills positions at comapnies everywhere in US. Do you really think they have a different attitude towards work than they do towards anything else? I doubt it.
You have to keep in mind, just because a company hangs out a sign and proclaims themseves as a business, they don't just start collecting money. They have to save and budget just like anyone else. And every expense takes away from EVERYONE.

Taj:
You would have us believe that lawsuits are the case for the piss poor economy.
Unfair wages, administrative mismanagement and WA policies that benefit the wealthiest Americans put us here.
Not to mention anyone working for McDonalds and Jiffy Lube probably doesnt speak English anyway. These folks simply do not sue.

Its the ceos & co execs that collect millions like pimples collecting pus.
They sit at positions that inherently take from the community chest.
All monies magnetically turn up in thier bank accounts. Here and & Geneva.

Then the bastards buy German cars. And big houses in Europe & Fiji Islands, Bora Bora kinda chit.

Reinvestment and fair & equitable lending practices would help.
New Industry and innovations would also help.
But its the same give money to military contractors and lobbyists that has put a run on our economy. Bush II actually believes he can spend enough imaginery money to keep this so-called nation afloat.

We'll shes a sinkin' ...

OUT>

What's an unfair wage? You can't deny that everything has a market value. Seems to me a "fair wage" is one that the market establishes, not what can be coerced. You're right, what most people make is an unfair wage, most don't deserve what they're getting. (I almost said "earning"....which is laughable really...)
Your protest appear to be motivated by an apparent hostility towards the people who achieve financial success. But why? That's what i don't get...so many people seem to want to hold the executives responisble for the failure of another. Why should a high level CEO feel guilty for being successful? That attitude just so obviously personifies my point, that no one wants to be responsible for themselves, let's blame someone else. "The reason I have no money is because this guy over there has it all" Are you kidding me? Do you have any clue how much money there is to be made in the world? The problem is, most people don't want to earn it, they want it handed to them on a silver platter. Why do you think the lottery is so popular!? (no, I don't play or gamble btw)
I'll repeat what I said before, which everyone summarily dismissed without addressing. Asian companies have tried for years to bring their companies and methods of operation here to the US. But they seem to often fail. Why? The methods are obviously very successful in the Asian countries...the only thing different is the labor involved. If you aren't familiar with how many Asian industrial plants work, it's basically like this in terms of the labor force in a plant:
New hires are interviewed by their peers. Once hired, they start off at a base salary, everyone starts off on the ground floor. It's an open system, where you can advance at your own pace. You study, and learn the job level above yours, and you interview and test with the people doing that job, and their supervisors. Once you achieve that level, you can proceed until you reach the highest level, which is where they want everyone to be. Each increase in job responsibility brings an increase in pay. All pay levels are posted, and everyone on a particualr job makes the smae amount, much like the military pay structure. The idea is, everyone is able (and willing) to do everyone else's job.
How much fairer can a system be? Why do you think these programs often fail so miserably here, while they flourish in Asian countries?

Your admission that you couldn't get 4 out of 5 people to work to your expectations says:

1) You hired the wrong people

2) Your expectations were too high

and/or

3) You pissed them off

What I'm getting from your posts is a combination of the second and third. (You haven't elaborated on the first) There will always be people who don't want to work, but your assessment of the work force in general is false.

There could be a lot of revamping done in regulation, I'll agree, but the answer isn't policies that encourage job exportation. If a lot of these lawsuits were found to be frivolous (which I think they are) we'd be better off. Yes, I do believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in corporate responsibility.

At the cabinet shop they had a known hazard, the slick floor. I did my best to work on it but twisted my ankle a couple times. I wouldn't have sued them unless something major happened, but it took the suggestion to get them to do something about it.

OTOH, guards on a saw decrease productivity so dummies won't stick their fingers in the blade. Is a saw without a guard a known hazard? Only to dummies, IMO. Keep the dummies out of the shop, but then you might have to pay more.

I'll be a lot more agreeable if we keep this on a civil tone.

GL

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: Your admission that you couldn't get 4 out of 5 people to work to your expectations says: 1) You hired the wrong people 2) Your expectations were too high and/or 3) You pissed them off What I'm getting from your posts is a combination of the second and third. (You haven't elaborated on the first) There will always be people who don't want to work, but your assessment of the work force in general is false. There could be a lot of revamping done in regulation, I'll agree, but the answer isn't policies that encourage job exportation. If a lot of these lawsuits were found to be frivolous (which I think they are) we'd be better off. Yes, I do believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in corporate responsibility. At the cabinet shop they had a known hazard, the slick floor. I did my best to work on it but twisted my ankle a couple times. I wouldn't have sued them unless something major happened, but it took the suggestion to get them to do something about it. OTOH, guards on a saw decrease productivity so dummies won't stick their fingers in the blade. Is a saw without a guard a known hazard? Only to dummies, IMO. Keep the dummies out of the shop, but then you might have to pay more. I'll be a lot more agreeable if we keep this on a civil tone. GL

I might have pissed them off, probably because I expected them to actually earn their paychecks. If that means my expectations were too high, then my point is pretty much made for me. Actually, I think my experience represents my claims very well. I was in construction, mostly remodelling. The last job I did in that business was deck in a very prestigeous part of town. I hired and lost no less than 10 guys over the course of a single summer, which is how long it ended up taking me to build that deck. I don't know that I was demanding of these guys, I was working right there with them every day, side by side. I expected them to at least be able to keep up with me. I had at least 10 years on most of these guys, and worked a steady pace. But most of the guys I hired worked a week, maybe two, and then just stopped showing up. Often, they would disappear after payday. I knew I was going to be working alone on the following Monday when the guy would ask if I could pay him in cash.
I have quite a bit of experience as a supervisor, and think I'm pretty good at it. I held a position here some time ago where I had roughly 20 people working for me. I ended up getting fired after 2 months because I constantly defied my boss. They would call down to have one of my techs go move furniture, and wouldn't allow it. I stuck up for my guys, if anyone wanted to get to them, they had to go through me first. (Military background, chain of command, all that)
Your example of the floor is a building maintenance problem, which I agree, a shop or facility has to be accountable for that, but that's different from what I was addressing earlier.
Believe me, I will be the first to agree that there is a lot of unfairness in how many companies operate. One of the biggest gripes I've always had is that you have many people doing the same job, making different sums of money. That's another thing I never did with my guys, money wasn't a secret. Everyone knew what everyone else made, I didn't try to hide anything. That included me, typically, most guys could figure out how much I made, and often, it wasn't a whole lot more than anyone else.

As for the outsourcing, well, since labor is cheaper, better, and frankly, less fussy overseas, what is keeping these companies from pulling up and moving their ENTIRE operations? If you go making it too difficult for them to turn a profit (whether you agree with the amount or not) they will do just that. They don't need anyone's permission to go where they want, and if they sever all ties with the US, the job loss will be a lot worse. I might be misreading the nature of the tax plan, but it seems to me the purpose is to have the US comapnies keep a foot in the US while they do what they're going to do anyway. Outsourcing started long before this tax plan everyone is so worked up over ever came into existance.

Don't know that I agree that Kerry is Waffling as much as I think he is just willing to say anything to anybody to please them. To date he has made fiscal promises of 2 trillion dollars. But has only planned for 200 Billion in new revenew (assuming he can get his new taxes through Congress - want odds on that happening?). SO? Where does the other 1.8 Trillion dollars come from?

Bottom line, can Kerry provide leadership that the Republican held Congress will follow? No. Hence, a Kerry victory means 4 years of stagnation. Show me the logic in voting for him when Bush has done a reasonably good job so far and has proven beyond ANYONE'S doubt that he can get things through Congress.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy:

"I might have pissed them off, probably because I expected them to actually earn their paychecks. If that means my expectations were too high, then my point is pretty much made for me. Actually, I think my experience represents my claims very well. I was in construction, mostly remodelling. The last job I did in that business was deck in a very prestigeous part of town. I hired and lost no less than 10 guys over the course of a single summer, which is how long it ended up taking me to build that deck. I don't know that I was demanding of these guys, I was working right there with them every day, side by side. I expected them to at least be able to keep up with me. I had at least 10 years on most of these guys, and worked a steady pace. But most of the guys I hired worked a week, maybe two, and then just stopped showing up. Often, they would disappear after payday. I knew I was going to be working alone on the following Monday when the guy would ask if I could pay him in cash."

Again, I haven't a clue how you went about hiring, what the job market was like at the time, or a host of other factors, not that I really want to get into all that. If the general work force was that bad, nobody could get a decent crew together, or find employable people. The vast majority of people are employed and I doubt that 4 out of 5 present the problems you describe.

"I have quite a bit of experience as a supervisor, and think I'm pretty good at it. I held a position here some time ago where I had roughly 20 people working for me. I ended up getting fired after 2 months because I constantly defied my boss. They would call down to have one of my techs go move furniture, and wouldn't allow it. I stuck up for my guys, if anyone wanted to get to them, they had to go through me first. (Military background, chain of command, all that)"

So not doing the job to your supervisors expectations didn't work out? I probably would have done the same thing. Maybe go move the furniture personally so my crew could stay productive.

"Your example of the floor is a building maintenance problem, which I agree, a shop or facility has to be accountable for that, but that's different from what I was addressing earlier.
Believe me, I will be the first to agree that there is a lot of unfairness in how many companies operate. One of the biggest gripes I've always had is that you have many people doing the same job, making different sums of money. That's another thing I never did with my guys, money wasn't a secret. Everyone knew what everyone else made, I didn't try to hide anything. That included me, typically, most guys could figure out how much I made, and often, it wasn't a whole lot more than anyone else."

I understand what you're saying about equal pay for equal work, but there are other factors. For instance, if I do lots of when I'm there, but only show up when I feel like it (late a bunch or whatever) I'm probably not worth as much to the company as someone who has been on time every day for ten years. Maybe the pay should be the same but vacation or other perks could be earned for reliability. That's up to the individual company though.

"As for the outsourcing, well, since labor is cheaper, better, and frankly, less fussy overseas, what is keeping these companies from pulling up and moving their ENTIRE operations? If you go making it too difficult for them to turn a profit (whether you agree with the amount or not) they will do just that. They don't need anyone's permission to go where they want, and if they sever all ties with the US, the job loss will be a lot worse. I might be misreading the nature of the tax plan, but it seems to me the purpose is to have the US comapnies keep a foot in the US while they do what they're going to do anyway. Outsourcing started long before this tax plan everyone is so worked up over ever came into existance."

They ARE moving entire operations overseas. Plants are closing, leaving thousands of workers in midlife without relevant job skills or many jobs available. Then the local economy collapses (more unemployment) because they have no money to spend. They dropped the requirement to look for a job in one county near here, at least for a while, EVERY job had thousands of applicants.

Bush I came up with NAFTA, Clinton signed it, and Bush II took it global. Actually, I think Clinton helped with that a bunch too. I don't understand how a "service enonomy" is supposed to work, with most products being made overseas, we better have something they want to spend money on. When we had an edge on technology that might have been the case, but we've slipped in that arena. Plus, I can't see a 50yr old textile worker becomming a programmer (or whatever) overnight.

GL

Sorry I changed formats, this makes it easier to address points.