Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I see, so according to you, Unions had nothing to do with any changes in workplace regulations? It all came about simply due to the free market?

Private sector unions are part of the free market. Workers felt that they were being treated poorly, so they joined together. There are reforms to union practices that need to be made (such as forced membership, payroll deductions, etc.), but that doesn't mean that they aren't part of the free market.

I see, so the fact that these workers, banding together demanded the changes you now rile against.. is irrelevant. The big guys now have all the money, can just look overseas for their labor and so its OK for them to just toss out the gains so hard fought by the unions.?

See, it really was a government by the people. Dropping that government doesn't put the people back in, it takes them out.

So the government has to change the law to reflect what unions have negotiated for? No. The government is there to enforce the agreements between the unions and the employers, not enact whatever the unions want.

If that were true, then none of those provisions would have become law. See, its not the unions per se that matter here, its the PEOPLE. And unions have worked because they are bands of people united into large enough groups that they can combat the huge power held by those at the top, when the issue is important enough to the populace. Unions are a symptom, not the cause.

You try to neatly sidestep that point by claiming that the government is "just reinforcing agreements". EXCEPT.. that is only true for specific clauses that involve specific contracts between the two. I refer to things that are far more wide spread, ranging from weekends becoming standard days off, holiday and sick pay, minimum wage and, yes, even providing healthcare through the employer (though DO note that the employers had a very hefty interest in keeping that system, up until about 15-20 years ago).

So, when you claim things like "the government doesn't have to reflect [what unions want], and so forth, you are really just saying the the government doesn't have to reflect the people desires. That is true when people fall asleep at the helm. And falling asleep, or rather convincing people that their rhetoric is somehow real, that the people at the top are these mananomous people who will do far more beneficial for society than anything past generations have demanded in the past (those poor people were, of course, stupid and greedy -- totally unlike those who now are wealthy and powerful).

Night Strike wrote:By the way, none of this is relevant as to why we should have perpetual welfare and bailouts of individuals and businesses.

Cute change... again. No one has defended the bailouts of businesses here, except you.

It IS relevant to why we have welfare. As I have noted before, having a bunch of starving people, particularly having kids who grow up malnurished and stunted does not do much for progress of a society.

The "bailouts".. depends on to what you refer. If you mean unemployment insurance and Social Security, then yes.. public pressure, IS very much part of why we have those things. If, however, you mean corporate welfare/extreme limits on real taxes (not talking the supposed tax rate that few businesses actually pay), then no. That happened because people have naively been willing to believe that a few extra bucks today will lead to some kind of better future for all... even if that money is patently stolen from the future.

Woodruff wrote:
Is this seriously legitimate, or a photoshop?

Uh, of course it is photoshopped. HOWEVER, if you read through many of the recent rulings/changes put forward in Texas recently, you realize that this is actually what IS happening.. its just rather hidden.

For example, its become rather "passe" to claim that the theory of evolution is just straight out wrong. Instead, there is this unintentional conspiracy that just does not allow the scientific establishment to really question and present the truth. The subtext is that to those making these claims, only "scientists" like those supported by the IRC are able to see through all that and bring forward the real truth. Of course, a basis of real science is questioning. BUT, without a grounding of already proven facts, then schools spend their time "debating' whether a wheel is round.. and never manage to get onto whether a wheel can operate a grist mill, be part of an automobile, etc, etc, etc,.

Similarly, we don't talk about combatting all these "Foreign influences" or modern Mcarthyism... nope, we talk about promoting American citizenship. Now, I know you understand (unlike some others here...) that I absolutely support teaching of citizenship, etc.. and I know you do as well. However, true citizenship involves understanding and critique, not just pablum recitation of "nice, neat 'facts' ".

Carry this outside of Texas, to, say, Pennsylvania, and you don't tend to see a bunch of parents shouting at school boards any longer (a few exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions). Instead, you see a slow infusion of "interested volunteers" and folks from conservative churches runnning for school boards. Theimpact is far-ranging. AND, these folks understand well that they don't have to waste their time protesting, they just gently ensure that there is just enough confusion (in the case of things like what natural selection really means in evolution, fossils, fossil lines, etc.) that kids will believe IRC-type claims as readily as those put forward by real scientists. Move on to issues like sex education, and all those topics just become so controversial that school boards/administrations are forced to either just capitulate and water down curricula or face huge fights for which they have neither the time or money. And, besides... the school board has already been infused will well-intentioned conservatives who are just "very interested in education".

Woodruff wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:


HAHAHAHAAHAHAahahaahahahaahahaaaaa..................... awwww....

Is this seriously legitimate, or a photoshop?

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10144-te ... ic-schools

Here you are Woodruff. Sorry I missed this when I dropped out. The Republican Party of Texas opposes critical thinking because it undermines religion and obeying your parents in all things.

"Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Brilliant! Give your BS programs super good sounding names, so that way if anyone opposes them, you can then bash them with the super good sounding names! It's almost like a super-power!

Aren't you really just doing the same thing Bush did with "no child left behind" and "blue skies legistlation"?

You aren't like Bush, are you?

Outcome based education teaches kids to teach themselves. Instead of you telling someone a fact and having them memorize, it basically teaches them how to problem solve. It's also a flexable teaching plan that allows schools to focus on whatever are their students are lacking in. We're all thinking about the students here; it's not a political issue. So what's for them to hate? Oh yeah:

which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority

Nothing about OBE is about behavior modification, only about teaching kids how to problem solve on their own. The RPoT just want's jarheads.

Make them into mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit. After all, it is for the greater good.
Religion first, people second.

notyou2 wrote:Make them into mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit. After all, it is for the greater good.
Religion first, people second.

MERICA! F YEAH!

Phatscotty wrote:Brilliant! Give your BS programs super good sounding names, so that way if anyone opposes them, you can then bash them with the super good sounding names! It's almost like a super-power!

Aren't you really just doing the same thing Bush did with "no child left behind" and "blue skies legistlation"?

You aren't like Bush, are you?

Did you read the article? Did you think about what it said? More importantly, did you employ any critical thinking skills while you were reading it, and then later while you contemplated it?

Are you also against higher-order critical thinking skills, Phatscotty?

Yeh OBE/CT are purely naming conventions and dont relate to actual things at all...

LiberationNews.org produces dumb shit that can't differentiate between capitalism and state intervention.

D+ for JB, whose obvious goal is to incite such responses as the above; therefore, he gets a + sign.

Phatscotty wrote:

So you don't believe that the United States government can throw you in prison for the rest of your life with no trial nor charges?

Hahaha, posting a politician's talking points and in the same breath talking about "thinking for yourself". Brilliant.
Also reminscent of:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Hahaha, posting a politician's talking points and in the same breath talking about "thinking for yourself". Brilliant.

When did stating the absolute truth become a talking point? You seem to imply that thinking for yourself makes it impossible for more than on person to come to the same conclusion, or impossible to agree with another's conclusion?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Hahaha, posting a politician's talking points and in the same breath talking about "thinking for yourself". Brilliant.
Also reminscent of:

It is easier to follow and set yourself to one set of ideologies than it is to think for yourself. Plenty of sheep and a lot of wolves.

Phatscotty wrote:
When did stating the absolute truth become a talking point? You seem to imply that thinking for yourself makes it impossible for more than on person to come to the same conclusion, or impossible to agree with another's conclusion?

So then there are issues on which you disagree with Paul? Anything significant?

Phatscotty wrote:

Excellent, I completely agree with this.

Of course it does imply that we must legalize drugs and remove restrictions on marriages. Since it isn't the government's job to stop us from getting high or going to hell cause we married the wrong way.

Phatscotty wrote:

That right there is an outstanding example of really shitty parenting. I'm not at all surprised that a child with parents who would force such a thing would do the thing she apparently did.

You can tell she is crying. That means at least she did not blow her parents off, tell them to shut up, or slam the door in the parents face, call her parents bitches....at least we know that.