Just so you know what you're voting for...

[Guest thebigjig]

oh and is this the same History Channel that claimed Lyndon Johnson killed Kennedy?

[Vyce 0]

You've implied twice now that America will, ultimately, be responsible for more Iraqi deaths than a man who has been killing his own people by the hundreds of thousands for the past 20 years.

 

Therefore, I will reiterate myself for a second time as well: You're a fucking moron if that's really what you think.

[Guest MikeSC]

come to think of it... during that russert interview, thats pretty much all Bush  did... grin like an idiot and repeat "terrorism" about 45 times

What do you mean "come to think of it?" You've only posted this in every one of your threads since the interview. It's not like terrorism is actually a pressing issue that greatly effects America or anything...

Come on, if foreign leaders don't think it's important, why should we?

So, it's down to Saddam levels (which seems odd, as mass graves aren't being dug at present) --- but the people have the chance to determine who their leader is. 

In that situation, no, because the power struggle after the US leaves results in a bunch of fighting between the sunni, shiites, and others and the end result is some religious wacko at the top who's very likely to be violent and murderous about it. Welcome to where you started.

Ah, so don't try and fix things because it might get worse? Such a cowardly view of the world.

 

Using your logic, the South should STILL be occupied by the North, we should STILL be in Germany and Japan...

He doesn't need to SAY it as he is actively DOING it.

Now that his original plan didn't work. Good job.

Seeing as how you clearly have no clue what his plan is or was, I'm not sure your disdain for the plan is even remotely appropriate.

I did not, anywhere in that post, say that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad guy and that he didnt kill alot of people and that there weren't mass graves and that he was a wonderful man who enjoys walks on the beach and cute cuddley kittens. I KNOW HE KILLED ALOT OF PEOPLE you stupid fuck. I just dont know if all of this was worth it, or that we made the middle east a better place than it was before... time is going to show that we made it worse

Seeing as how you clearly have no clue how many Iraqis Saddam killed (hint: It's in the millions, by every single estimate --- he's had YEARS to do it), then yes, you are a complete moron on this.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

I will happily admit that I am not an expert on Iraqi history, but everytime I hear his name mentioned alongside Hitlers, I hear people laugh and call that an insult to Hitler. I know that he killed hundreds of thousands when you compare it to the Iran war and the mass killing of the Kurds, but I've NEVER heard his name mentioned in the same breath as other monsters...

 

we OBVIOUSLY didnt go in there to stop genoicide, so do you honestly blame me for thinking differently? We went in there for WMD

 

no, wait... we went in there to liberate the citizens, yeah... thats it

 

We obviously didnt give a fuck about what he was doing prior to the Gulf war, and we obviously didnt give a fuck then, because Bush 1 didnt even go in after him

 

Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed in the war and after it... add that into the escalation of terror since Iraq is somewhat of a breeding ground and the casualties of the possible attacks that will come...

 

that is why I PREDICTED... the possibility. I never said that the war itself has caused more deaths, but that when its all said and done, we dont know how many deaths it will have caused. This fucking thing could be going on for 10 years, and imagine the death rate if stays at the rate it has been... or if it gets worse

[Guest MikeSC]

I will happily admit that I am not an expert on Iraqi history, but everytime I hear his name mentioned alongside Hitlers, I hear people laugh and call that an insult to Hitler. I know that he killed hundreds of thousands when you compare it to the Iran war and the mass killing of the Kurds, but I've NEVER heard his name mentioned in the same breath as other monsters...

I'd have no problem listing him with Pol Pot in the pantheon of murderous thugs.

we OBVIOUSLY didnt go in there to stop genoicide, so do you honestly blame me for thinking differently? We went in there for WMD

 

no, wait... we went in there to liberate the citizens, yeah... thats it

 

We obviously didnt give a fuck about what he was doing prior to the Gulf war, and we obviously didnt give a fuck then, because Bush 1 didnt even go in after him

WHOA!

 

The ONLY reason Bush 1 didn't eliminate Saddam in 1991 because he did what the int'l left said Bush 2 should do --- he listened to them. THEY didn't want it and he didn't want to piss off the world community.

 

And we saw what good came out of that.

Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed in the war and after it... add that into the escalation of terror since Iraq is somewhat of a breeding ground and the casualties of the possible attacks that will come...

So, terrorists killing Iraqis is OUR fault?

 

You're trying to argue that terrorism DIDN'T EXIST in Iraq WHATSOEVER --- but in the few months that we've been there, a deep, intricate network has been set up?

that is why I PREDICTED... the possibility. I never said that the war itself has caused more deaths, but that when its all said and done, we dont know how many deaths it will have caused. This fucking thing could be going on for 10 years, and imagine the death rate if stays at the rate it has been... or if it gets worse

Saddam had many more years and killed far more people.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ah, so don't try and fix things because it might get worse? Such a cowardly view of the world.

You can go ahead and call it cowardly, I guess I have no choice but to call it conservative, since it meant not getting involved in an issue that didn't affect us.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WHOA!

 

The ONLY reason Bush 1 didn't eliminate Saddam in 1991 because he did what the int'l left said Bush 2 should do --- he listened to them. THEY didn't want it and he didn't want to piss off the world community.

 

And we saw what good came out of that.

[Guest Cerebus]

Shoe > Doonesbury

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Off topic...

 

What exactly is negative about that?

[Guest thebigjig]

its a poster mocking Bush and how most republicans hate unions because they throw their support to the Democrats...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Shoe > Doonesbury

My shoe AND sock > Doonesbury (RIP McNally)

 

What exactly is negative about that?

 

The hat doesn't match the turtleneck...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Shoe > Doonesbury

I haven't seen it in years.

 

Still, I don't often read Doonesbury but that strip totally makes my arguement for me with it's excerpts from the book.

[Guest MikeSC]

its a poster mocking Bush and how most republicans hate unions because they throw their support to the Democrats...

Couldn't be that unions tend to demand far more wages and far too little work.

 

The MLBPA is simply a REALLY efficient union --- and does anybody respect THEM?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Couldn't be that unions tend to demand far more wages and far too little work.

Is that true? I mean, if you put complete control in the hands of most the big businessmen, the workers would be doing far too much work for far smaller wages. The unions are just the other end.

 

The idea of capitalism is for both sides to try and get as much as they can for themselves and, by doing so, wind up with a balance in the middle.

[Guest MikeSC]

Couldn't be that unions tend to demand far more wages and far too little work.

Is that true? I mean, if you put complete control in the hands of most the big businessmen, the workers would be doing far too much work for far smaller wages. The unions are just the other end.

 

The idea of capitalism is for both sides to try and get as much as they can for themselves and, by doing so, wind up with a balance in the middle.

And when unions go too far (see auto manufacturing) and end up pricing jobs so high that the job costs more than its worth, then the company has remedy the problem.

 

And the union guys are on the picket line, doing squat.

 

I'll give you a story. When I lived in NJ (Pleasantville, about 5 miles outside of Atlantic City, for the none of you who care), the trashmen were unionized.

 

That meant, without fail, if you had more than 2 bags of trash to be picked up, they wouldn't do it.

 

Never once.

 

They'd claim it was the wrong kind of trash (the "garbage men" wouldn't take, say, cat litter because it's "refuse" and the "refuse" guys wouldn't take it because it's "garbage"), or simply kick it aside and take the smallest thing they could.

 

More than a few times, they'd end up SPLITTING the bags open, leaving the trash on the sidewalk for ME to take care of. And if it's left there overnight because you have to work that night until, oh, 2 in the morning, you'd get a nice letter from the city threatening fines for it.

 

And you couldn't take it to the dump yourself as nobody seemed to know WHERE a dump was, nor its hours (and calling the sanitation dept didn't really help anything).

 

So, now I'm back in SC. The trashmen AREN'T unionized and, lo and behold, ALL of the trash goes. If you even need to throw out a washing machine, they take it.

 

You see, without the unions, THE WORK ACTUALLY GETS DONE. With them, IT DOESN'T.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So there's an imbalance in the system. Imbalances happen.

 

There's also businesses where non-union workers work themselves into bodily damage but take what the employer gives them. The main focus of this web site is one such environment. And if someone tries to start a union (see: Jesse Ventura) they're gone. That's simply an imabalance on the other end.

 

It doesn't mean that I should call for the total abolishment of unions or the total aboloshment of corporations.

[Styles 0]

eh, I'm pretty anti-union myself. As a college student I work a summer/winter job as a grocery store clerk, and without even having a CHOICE, I'm in the union which means they take a huge chunk of my already meager salary each week. Sometimes bizzare extra union fees appear from time to time. And it's impossible to get in touch with anyone to clarify what they're charging me for, so I just have to eat it. I mean, I know many unions do good for many industries, but for a freakin summer job, why do I need a union?! It pisses me off that I never had a choice in the matter and just must accept having chunks of money taken out of my weekly pay.

On the flipside, I got full tax refunds from both the federal and state government because my "income" is so low.

So, Bush Tax Cuts=I get all my money back and Democrats unions=tons of money taken without my approval.

I think I know what side of the issue I'm on!

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Up here we have numerous strikes involving teachers, medical workers, public transit, transportation ministry, snow plow service, postal workers, etc. Essential services in the employ of the government. When some guy can't get needed surgery because hospital employees are on strike (and it has happened in Toronto), it has gone too far. Unions have their place, but there are essential services out there that should not have the right to.

[Vern Gagne 0]

One problem I have with Unions is they've become far too political. IMO..a union should not support a specific canidate. Make available to the members, what each canidates stance on issues are and let them decide. Many times I've talked union members who had to remain silent in their support of a Republican canidate.

[Guest MikeSC]

Up here we have numerous strikes involving teachers, medical workers, public transit, transportation ministry, snow plow service, postal workers, etc. Essential services in the employ of the government. When some guy can't get needed surgery because hospital employees are on strike (and it has happened in Toronto), it has gone too far. Unions have their place, but there are essential services out there that should not have the right to.

And the thing that, in hindsight, makes me respect Reagan all the more was when he simply canned ALL of the air traffic controllers and replaced them when they went on strike.

 

If you want to strike when your job affects the entire nation, you can just rot.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Up here we have numerous strikes involving teachers, medical workers, public transit, transportation ministry, snow plow service, postal workers, etc.  Essential services in the employ of the government.  When some guy can't get needed surgery because hospital employees are on strike (and it has happened in Toronto), it has gone too far.  Unions have their place, but there are essential services out there that should not have the right to.

And the thing that, in hindsight, makes me respect Reagan all the more was when he simply canned ALL of the air traffic controllers and replaced them when they went on strike.

 

If you want to strike when your job affects the entire nation, you can just rot.

-=Mike

Heh, it's like when Major League Baseball canned most of the umpires that went on strike. It's like you're UMPIRES no one likes you anyway...

[Guest MikeSC]

Up here we have numerous strikes involving teachers, medical workers, public transit, transportation ministry, snow plow service, postal workers, etc.  Essential services in the employ of the government.  When some guy can't get needed surgery because hospital employees are on strike (and it has happened in Toronto), it has gone too far.  Unions have their place, but there are essential services out there that should not have the right to.

And the thing that, in hindsight, makes me respect Reagan all the more was when he simply canned ALL of the air traffic controllers and replaced them when they went on strike.

 

If you want to strike when your job affects the entire nation, you can just rot.

-=Mike

Heh, it's like when Major League Baseball canned most of the umpires that went on strike. It's like you're UMPIRES no one likes you anyway...

Let's get the story straight:

 

The umps QUIT --- assuming that the mass walk-out would make MLB capitulate. They quit jobs that were insultingly easy (they got vacation time DURING THE SEASON and were paid in the 6 figure range) and could be done by anybody (as was proven after the fact).

 

MLB didn't fire a soul. They just accepted the resignations.

 

I, personally, loved it --- and love watching that fat tub of goo Eric Gregg bemoan that baseball won't take his insanely fat BUTT back.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Up here we have numerous strikes involving teachers, medical workers, public transit, transportation ministry, snow plow service, postal workers, etc. Essential services in the employ of the government. When some guy can't get needed surgery because hospital employees are on strike (and it has happened in Toronto), it has gone too far. Unions have their place, but there are essential services out there that should not have the right to.

I actually agree with this. And with what Mike said as well.

 

I don't mind unions so much in areas where there are competing businesses, though. The job still can get done and the pressure to not let the competition gain too much encourages negotiation (see: UPS strike in the 90s, although that one was kind of ugly.)

 

Unions are kind of a pro/con issue. As a guy who follows the gambling industry (mostly for stock reasons), a casino in Las Vegas closed a few months ago and some blamed the Culinary Union, which does have a lot of weight and asked for their debt to be paid off, when the casino didn't have the money to pay it.

 

However, for as much bitching as the Union by longtime fans of that casino for wanting their money and causing the business to shut their doors, the non-union employees got it worse, as management wasn't doing their duties in paying for health care, and suddently a lot of people found themselves in debt very fast.