Or maybe his son was just being a dick and this will be a good lesson for him. If I'm going to try to talk my wife into playing Quake with me, I'm not going to go 50-0 with her because that prevents her from having fun or wanting to play again.
OTOH, firearms did work for the American revolutionaries
With support from the French army and navy.
the Afghans against the Russians
Guns didn't drive out the Russians, stinger missiles did in some of the most hostile terrain on the planet. But who's going to drop anti-aircraft missiles to you and the other Wolverines while you're holed up in the Grand Tetons?
and the WW2 vets who fought for fair elections at the Battle of Athens, TN
Yes, we finally have one. Now compare that once example of success to the thousands of times that using a gun on LEO's either results in your death or death sentence. Then you'll find that the nation's 2nd most powerful domestic lobby, which is supposedly devoted to gun rights, doesn't actually spend money to defend people who actually exercise those rights against abuse law enforcement.
Personal firearms seem to be little more than Tiger Stones in today's world.
Firearms didn't work for Randy Weaver, they didn't work for Gordon Khal, or the Freemen in Montana, or the Branch Dividians in Waco, or the Black Panthers, or for the Confederates, who were an actual army. Using guns on federal, state or local LEO's just seems to bring more LEO's with more guns and a greater desire to kill you.
And with the War on Drugs and the GWOT funneling military grade hardware and training into local police departments, local cops are as hopped up "to get the bad guys" as you are to stand up to "jackbooted government thugs". Smashing, yea capitalism.
Nickled and Dimed my ass. Have you read that book? or just post links to it?
Yes, I have, and you're still a fucking idiot. The entire point of the book was the author getting by on service level wages, and how much life sucks balls when you're doing it. Maybe you've just gotten used to ball sucking and that's why you think it's such a great idea of everyone was in the same shitty boat.
Yes, it's a fact that the "rural" argument is weak sauce.
What? You can get from Seattle to SF, *and* from Boston to Miami.
Not on high speed rail you can't, which was the point..
If you think you can get congress to do something that the PACs and lobbyists don't want it to do, more power to you, and please go ahead.
Yes, because if there's one thing the military-industrial complex has proven, it's that Congress is entirely resistant to spending large amounts of money on projects across the country that employ hundreds of thousands of people.
When you're a dumbass in a hole, stop digging. The original claim was that Detroit pays 3x what foreign car companies pay, which, as another poster pointed out, was a well debunked lie. $9 an hour more doesn't come close to being $90 an hour, what it would have to be at to be 3x as much.
Go retake K-12 and brush up on your own reading comprehension, dumbass.
Fact: We have far more space to cover than most countries, and we cover it with highway, not rail. The auto industry knew, and knows, this.
Fact: that argument was weak the first time we saw it, when it was used to rationalize our shitty internet access. The "but Amerika is ruuural" argument does indeed explain why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin to Bumfuck, Wyoming on high speed rail. It does not explain why you can't do that from Seattle to San Francisco or from Boston to Miami. The coasts are just as heavily populated as parts of Europe that have great train systems - time for the the U.S. to at least join the 20th Century when it comes to rail.
Nope, you're a liar. What extended the Depression was when FDR listened to conservatives and cut New Deal programs in 1937-38 in an attempt to balance the budget. So the Depression was prolonged because of conservatism.
It is only "debunked" in the world that really wishes it to be so
No, it's debunked, flat-out. It's a lie because it takes the total compensation for current workers and retirees and dividied it by the number of current workers. It's an incredibly dishonest Republican argument based on pure sophistry, but I repeat myself.
No, they aren't. UAW has taken cuts in pay and benefits. Whereas the CEO of GM has talked about taking a cut in it's $16 million salary, and only since getting castigated in Congress.
No, he doesn't. The $70 an hour lie is based on taking the cost of total compensation for current and retired employees, and divides it by the number of current employees. It's an incredibly dishonest Republican argument, but I repeat myself.
Screaming at the top of our lungs to stop it, to no avail. Just like we're doing now.
Not the 18 Republican Senators who voted for the Wall Street bailout but against the Detroit bailout. But it sure was nice of them to make it perfectly clear just how much they hate the middle class while loving the corporate cock. They're insatiable.
a living wage in this country is $5 an hour tops. And you know what? it makes me hate the UAW even more because I realize what over indulged asshole they are, assembly line isn't Hard work, it's low stress mindless repetition that a trained monkey or immigrant can do.
No, it's quite clear that you are the fucking idiot in the room, by being a worker opposed to a decent living for workers. Oh, and $5 an hour my ass.
As someone who has worked on road crews digging ditches, cleaned offices of 3rd shift, ran a machine gluing cardboard boxes together, and a wide variety of assembly line work I still say fuck the UAW and the Big 3 management whose been willingly taking it up the ass for years.
Being anti-union makes a modicum of sense if you're a high level executive, because the union might interfere with with your 15% annual pay increase on top of your multi-million dollar salary. But being a worker and being against unions is like being black and opposed to the Civil Rights Act, or being a woman and opposed to the 19th amendment. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Detroits problems have nothing to do with unions, who have taken cut after cut after cut. It has everything to do with top management that continues to make millions per year, regardless of performance. Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM, presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and not only still has his job, but continues to make $16 million a year while running the company into the ground.
So you are: a worker + you hate unions + not a negative word for the incompetent managers of the company = you're a fucking idiot.
You can't just dismiss the source without addressing what the link says.
I looked at your link and I can address it now: it's straight up right wing bullshit. Heritage engages in the usual sophistry of adding up all labor, health care and pension costs for current and retired employees and divides it by the number of active workers to reach the $70 an hour figure. And I'm shocked, shocked! (well, not that shocked) that they completely ignore one giant paycheck: the CEO's. Rick Wagoner has presided over a $70 billion loss for GM and not only still has his job, but has a private jet fleet and continues to make $16 million a year. But it's nice of the right wing to make it crystal clear just how much they hate the middle class and love extravagant CEO compensation, even if the CEO in question is grotesquely incompetent.
BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Deal with it.
Liar. Find a "greenie" that thinks farmers should make do with 4 cylinder compact pickup trucks. And your point is a red herring regardless: yes, Toyota makes some big trucks (the Tundra), but it also came out with the Prius. Whereas Detroit was still focused on gas guzzlers as their primary business.
And GM and Ford have been doing this for the last 10 years.
Not across their lines, they haven't. Just because Ford has great styling on the current Mustangs doesn't mean that their vans aren't still fugly.
Ironically, one of the *COMPLAINTS* against the Big Three, that their cars are not high-tech enough. You want reliability, safety, etc? Guess what, that stuff is complex.
Garbage. My parents 81' Accord was built like a tank on reliability and did well on crash tests at the time. Throw in an airbag and you're set.
You need to understand the power that the UAW holds over the big three. The money they spend on those that are retired and their spouses. Doing what you want isn't as simple as snapping your fingers.
And on continuing to pay Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM, $16 million a year despite the fact that he's presided over a $70 billion loss for the company. But it's been nice of Republicans to make it perfectly clear just how much they hate workers and the the middle class.
Ford and GM would *LOVE* to build their cars here, but if they have to $75/hr for each employee
You're a god damned liar. The $71 an hour (get you're wingnut lies straight) is based on taking all pay and benefits for current and retired employees and dividing it by the current number of employees. It's pure sophistry - but then if you didn't engage in it, you'd have your wingnut merit badge revoked.
No, the reason Amtrak isn't profitable is because it's forced to run unprofitable lines in order to keep senators happy, so the senators keep giving Amtrak subsidies to make up for the fact that it isn't profitable. Yes, it is a vicious cycle.
Either everyone involved takes a cut, or everyone involved gets nothing. Pretty simple.
But of course the unions have taken cuts. Lots of them. What unions have little interest in doing is taking benefits cuts to the bone and layoffs while management keeps their multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes. Funny how you see Republican politicians demanding the former but never the latter.
Bullshit. Highways shaped only the relatively local landscape, which the grandparent properly points out is served by light rail and subways. What TFA is talking about is medium and long distance intercity rail - and as the grandparent point out, the population of most of the US is simply distributed very badly for that type of transportation, and that distribution predates highways.
You bullshit. Most Americans live along the coasts, in states with population densities comparable to European countries with great rail systems. The "but Amerika is ruuuuural" argument does explain why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin to Bumfuck, Wyoming on maglevs, but it doesn't explain why you can't go from Seattle to Los Angles or from Boston to Atlanta on high speed rail.
But honestly, why? The US has demonstrated that there is little to no interest in pubic rail.
Sure it has. They're called subways in NYC, and they carry 6.4 million passengers in a city of 8.2 million. And with high gas prices, Amtrak ridership has jumped in both rural and urban areas.
Supporting a high speed rail network is a no-brainer:
1. It will create millions of much needed jobs. 2. Will provide much greater fuel efficiency than either cars or planes. 3. Will alleviate traffic congestion and mean less wear on roads. 4. Fast travel with no TSA bullshit.
The Big 3 were in a bad spot because they were left holding the bag when gas prices skyrocketed.
No, they're in a bad spot because they wanted to keep selling high margin gas guzzlers in the face of rising gas prices, just like in the 70's. So they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese, just like in the 70's. Katrina should have been a big wake up call, but only Ford seemed to (partly) get the memo that maybe they should have some more fuel efficient models.
The UAW is evil because they "bent the big three over the table during the fat years" by demanding profit sharing, and reaping fat bonuses for their workers.
No, what's funny are the Republicans who bitch about the UAW not going down to minimum wage, yet have no problem with Rick Wagoner keeping his job. You know, the CEO of GM that has presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and still makes $16 million a year.
Yes, look at Switzerland - a small country with a high population density. Then look at the US and see how many Switzerland's you can drop into very low population density areas between the high population areas.
Sorry, but that was a lame argument the first time I heard it, when it was used to explain our craptacular internet access. Yes, it explains why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin (pop 4,000) to Bumfuck, Wyoming (pop 2,500) on rail. It does not explain why you can't travel along the heavily populated coasts by high speed rail. Especially in the New England area, which has 5 states with a higher population density than Switzerland.
1. Building a high speed rail network would create millions of desperately needed jobs. 2. Would alleviate traffic congestion. 3. No TSA bullshit. 4. Much faster than driving, cheaper than flying. 5. Far more fuel efficient than either planes or cars.
Americans still want the freedom that cars give them.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe his son was just being a dick and this will be a good lesson for him. If I'm going to try to talk my wife into playing Quake with me, I'm not going to go 50-0 with her because that prevents her from having fun or wanting to play again.
OTOH, firearms did work for the American revolutionaries
With support from the French army and navy.
the Afghans against the Russians
Guns didn't drive out the Russians, stinger missiles did in some of the most hostile terrain on the planet. But who's going to drop anti-aircraft missiles to you and the other Wolverines while you're holed up in the Grand Tetons?
and the WW2 vets who fought for fair elections at the Battle of Athens, TN
Yes, we finally have one. Now compare that once example of success to the thousands of times that using a gun on LEO's either results in your death or death sentence. Then you'll find that the nation's 2nd most powerful domestic lobby, which is supposedly devoted to gun rights, doesn't actually spend money to defend people who actually exercise those rights against abuse law enforcement.
Personal firearms seem to be little more than Tiger Stones in today's world.
Firearms didn't work for Randy Weaver, they didn't work for Gordon Khal, or the Freemen in Montana, or the Branch Dividians in Waco, or the Black Panthers, or for the Confederates, who were an actual army. Using guns on federal, state or local LEO's just seems to bring more LEO's with more guns and a greater desire to kill you.
And with the War on Drugs and the GWOT funneling military grade hardware and training into local police departments, local cops are as hopped up "to get the bad guys" as you are to stand up to "jackbooted government thugs". Smashing, yea capitalism.
Nickled and Dimed my ass. Have you read that book? or just post links to it?
Yes, I have, and you're still a fucking idiot. The entire point of the book was the author getting by on service level wages, and how much life sucks balls when you're doing it. Maybe you've just gotten used to ball sucking and that's why you think it's such a great idea of everyone was in the same shitty boat.
It's not an argument. It's a fact.
Yes, it's a fact that the "rural" argument is weak sauce.
What? You can get from Seattle to SF, *and* from Boston to Miami.
Not on high speed rail you can't, which was the point..
If you think you can get congress to do something that the PACs and lobbyists don't want it to do, more power to you, and please go ahead.
Yes, because if there's one thing the military-industrial complex has proven, it's that Congress is entirely resistant to spending large amounts of money on projects across the country that employ hundreds of thousands of people.
but because they are typically the best candidate on the ballot in terms of economics and personal liberty.
History begs to differ with you. Republicans have been rotten at both since Eisenhower left office.
When you're a dumbass in a hole, stop digging. The original claim was that Detroit pays 3x what foreign car companies pay, which, as another poster pointed out, was a well debunked lie. $9 an hour more doesn't come close to being $90 an hour, what it would have to be at to be 3x as much.
Go retake K-12 and brush up on your own reading comprehension, dumbass.
Fact: We have far more space to cover than most countries, and we cover it with highway, not rail. The auto industry knew, and knows, this.
Fact: that argument was weak the first time we saw it, when it was used to rationalize our shitty internet access. The "but Amerika is ruuural" argument does indeed explain why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin to Bumfuck, Wyoming on high speed rail. It does not explain why you can't do that from Seattle to San Francisco or from Boston to Miami. The coasts are just as heavily populated as parts of Europe that have great train systems - time for the the U.S. to at least join the 20th Century when it comes to rail.
Nope, you're a liar. What extended the Depression was when FDR listened to conservatives and cut New Deal programs in 1937-38 in an attempt to balance the budget. So the Depression was prolonged because of conservatism.
Too bad the facts don't meet your story line. The $75 an hour canard is a flat out lie.
It is only "debunked" in the world that really wishes it to be so
No, it's debunked, flat-out. It's a lie because it takes the total compensation for current workers and retirees and dividied it by the number of current workers. It's an incredibly dishonest Republican argument based on pure sophistry, but I repeat myself.
How does that invalidate the GP's claim ?
Because $9 an hour != three times $30 an hour, dumbass.
No, they aren't. UAW has taken cuts in pay and benefits. Whereas the CEO of GM has talked about taking a cut in it's $16 million salary, and only since getting castigated in Congress.
You make a mistake yourself, friend.
No, he doesn't. The $70 an hour lie is based on taking the cost of total compensation for current and retired employees, and divides it by the number of current employees. It's an incredibly dishonest Republican argument, but I repeat myself.
Screaming at the top of our lungs to stop it, to no avail. Just like we're doing now.
Not the 18 Republican Senators who voted for the Wall Street bailout but against the Detroit bailout. But it sure was nice of them to make it perfectly clear just how much they hate the middle class while loving the corporate cock. They're insatiable.
a living wage in this country is $5 an hour tops. And you know what? it makes me hate the UAW even more because I realize what over indulged asshole they are, assembly line isn't Hard work, it's low stress mindless repetition that a trained monkey or immigrant can do.
No, it's quite clear that you are the fucking idiot in the room, by being a worker opposed to a decent living for workers. Oh, and $5 an hour my ass.
As someone who has worked on road crews digging ditches, cleaned offices of 3rd shift, ran a machine gluing cardboard boxes together, and a wide variety of assembly line work I still say fuck the UAW and the Big 3 management whose been willingly taking it up the ass for years.
Being anti-union makes a modicum of sense if you're a high level executive, because the union might interfere with with your 15% annual pay increase on top of your multi-million dollar salary. But being a worker and being against unions is like being black and opposed to the Civil Rights Act, or being a woman and opposed to the 19th amendment. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Detroits problems have nothing to do with unions, who have taken cut after cut after cut. It has everything to do with top management that continues to make millions per year, regardless of performance. Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM, presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and not only still has his job, but continues to make $16 million a year while running the company into the ground.
So you are: a worker + you hate unions + not a negative word for the incompetent managers of the company = you're a fucking idiot.
You can't just dismiss the source without addressing what the link says.
I looked at your link and I can address it now: it's straight up right wing bullshit. Heritage engages in the usual sophistry of adding up all labor, health care and pension costs for current and retired employees and divides it by the number of active workers to reach the $70 an hour figure. And I'm shocked, shocked! (well, not that shocked) that they completely ignore one giant paycheck: the CEO's. Rick Wagoner has presided over a $70 billion loss for GM and not only still has his job, but has a private jet fleet and continues to make $16 million a year. But it's nice of the right wing to make it crystal clear just how much they hate the middle class and love extravagant CEO compensation, even if the CEO in question is grotesquely incompetent.
BTW, that factcheck.org ought to fact check itself, since it always leans left.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Deal with it.
Something that greenies like to overlook.
Liar. Find a "greenie" that thinks farmers should make do with 4 cylinder compact pickup trucks. And your point is a red herring regardless: yes, Toyota makes some big trucks (the Tundra), but it also came out with the Prius. Whereas Detroit was still focused on gas guzzlers as their primary business.
And GM and Ford have been doing this for the last 10 years.
Not across their lines, they haven't. Just because Ford has great styling on the current Mustangs doesn't mean that their vans aren't still fugly.
Ironically, one of the *COMPLAINTS* against the Big Three, that their cars are not high-tech enough. You want reliability, safety, etc? Guess what, that stuff is complex.
Garbage. My parents 81' Accord was built like a tank on reliability and did well on crash tests at the time. Throw in an airbag and you're set.
You need to understand the power that the UAW holds over the big three. The money they spend on those that are retired and their spouses. Doing what you want isn't as simple as snapping your fingers.
And on continuing to pay Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM, $16 million a year despite the fact that he's presided over a $70 billion loss for the company.
But it's been nice of Republicans to make it perfectly clear just how much they hate workers and the the middle class.
Ford and GM would *LOVE* to build their cars here, but if they have to $75/hr for each employee
You're a god damned liar. The $71 an hour (get you're wingnut lies straight) is based on taking all pay and benefits for current and retired employees and dividing it by the current number of employees. It's pure sophistry - but then if you didn't engage in it, you'd have your wingnut merit badge revoked.
No, the reason Amtrak isn't profitable is because it's forced to run unprofitable lines in order to keep senators happy, so the senators keep giving Amtrak subsidies to make up for the fact that it isn't profitable. Yes, it is a vicious cycle.
Either everyone involved takes a cut, or everyone involved gets nothing. Pretty simple.
But of course the unions have taken cuts. Lots of them. What unions have little interest in doing is taking benefits cuts to the bone and layoffs while management keeps their multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes. Funny how you see Republican politicians demanding the former but never the latter.
Bullshit. Highways shaped only the relatively local landscape, which the grandparent properly points out is served by light rail and subways. What TFA is talking about is medium and long distance intercity rail - and as the grandparent point out, the population of most of the US is simply distributed very badly for that type of transportation, and that distribution predates highways.
You bullshit. Most Americans live along the coasts, in states with population densities comparable to European countries with great rail systems. The "but Amerika is ruuuuural" argument does explain why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin to Bumfuck, Wyoming on maglevs, but it doesn't explain why you can't go from Seattle to Los Angles or from Boston to Atlanta on high speed rail.
But honestly, why? The US has demonstrated that there is little to no interest in pubic rail.
Sure it has. They're called subways in NYC, and they carry 6.4 million passengers in a city of 8.2 million. And with high gas prices, Amtrak ridership has jumped in both rural and urban areas.
Supporting a high speed rail network is a no-brainer:
1. It will create millions of much needed jobs.
2. Will provide much greater fuel efficiency than either cars or planes.
3. Will alleviate traffic congestion and mean less wear on roads.
4. Fast travel with no TSA bullshit.
The Big 3 were in a bad spot because they were left holding the bag when gas prices skyrocketed.
No, they're in a bad spot because they wanted to keep selling high margin gas guzzlers in the face of rising gas prices, just like in the 70's. So they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese, just like in the 70's. Katrina should have been a big wake up call, but only Ford seemed to (partly) get the memo that maybe they should have some more fuel efficient models.
The UAW is evil because they "bent the big three over the table during the fat years" by demanding profit sharing, and reaping fat bonuses for their workers.
No, what's funny are the Republicans who bitch about the UAW not going down to minimum wage, yet have no problem with Rick Wagoner keeping his job. You know, the CEO of GM that has presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and still makes $16 million a year.
Yes, look at Switzerland - a small country with a high population density. Then look at the US and see how many Switzerland's you can drop into very low population density areas between the high population areas.
Sorry, but that was a lame argument the first time I heard it, when it was used to explain our craptacular internet access. Yes, it explains why you can't go from Jerkwater, Wisconsin (pop 4,000) to Bumfuck, Wyoming (pop 2,500) on rail. It does not explain why you can't travel along the heavily populated coasts by high speed rail. Especially in the New England area, which has 5 states with a higher population density than Switzerland.
Reasons to support rail:
1. Building a high speed rail network would create millions of desperately needed jobs.
2. Would alleviate traffic congestion.
3. No TSA bullshit.
4. Much faster than driving, cheaper than flying.
5. Far more fuel efficient than either planes or cars.
Americans still want the freedom that cars give them.
Just like they never took to airplanes.