Nothing can cause a sprint unemployment (and off shoring) like the overly inflated wages cause by modern day unions.
Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. The productivity of the American worker has surged over the last few decades, yet wages have stagnated. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation (who are rewarded regardless of their performance - GM's CEO makes $16 million a year despite the company losing $70 billion dollars) it would be over $50 an hour.
Because it works so well in the auto industry, why not?
Yes, it does. Detroit did just fine with decades with unions. Amazing how it's the fault of worker bees who want a decent wage for their work, and not the CEO of GM, who's presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and not only still has his job, but is still getting paid $16 million a year.
But I'd like to point out that, to professionals, it's grotesquely offensive. I have been programming professionally for over 20 years, have a 150 IQ, and absolutely adore what I do. I make Dilbert look like Jed Clampett. I do shit like clone Minesweeper in 4 hours from scratch just for the hell of it.
There's a term that comes to mind: idiot savant. Professional athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions are all rewarded for creativity and success, not just seniority.
...as do writers, directors, and actors. All these professions have strong unions and all their members are rewarded for creativity and success, not just seniority. There is nothing stopping tech workers with big egos from forming an Elitist Assholes Union and making six, seven figure salaries.
Um, since the Dems have had the majority, the FISA bill WITH telecomm immunity has passed, they handed our treasury over to the Wall Street Idiots who trashed our economy, the newest version of the Farm Bill has very little meaningful reform of Big Agribusiness in it, Guantanamo Bay still harbors prisoners who were tortured, Bush/Cheney still haven't been impeached, etc etc etc.
See the above, where I said "majority of the majority". The problem with a 51 nominal majority (Lieberman usually votes with the Republicans), is that it's usually easy for the Republicans to persuade a Bush Dog or ten to vote with them.
I'm a Dem, but I swear, I am NEVER going to vote for ANY incumbent ever again.
The problem isn't incumbency, it's shitty Dems. So vote to re-elect Russ Fiengold and Byron Dorgan, but toss Reid and Pelosi out on their asses.
Bush was a two term governor of a large state before he was elected.
5 years as the 5th most powerful politician in the state of Texas (Texas constitution gives little power to the state governor). Prior to that, his resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, and driving companies into the ground in positions he was given by friends of his father. Every accomplishment in Bush's life has come from his last name. If he were George W. Smith, right now he'd be taking orders from a 17 year old assistant manager at a Burger King.
As opposed to Obama, who served 4 years in the U.S. Senate (from the 5th most populous state) and 8 years in the Illinois state senate (from a district with a higher population than the state of Alaska). Prior to that, he went to Columbia, was head of the Harvard law review, graduated magna cum laude, spent 3 years as a community organizer and taught Constitutional law for ten years. Obama earned all his accomplishments through intelligence, skill, and hard work - not based on his last name. Not even Bahgdad Bob would try to claim that Obama has less experience than Bush, much less Sarah Palin. But you do find Republicans doing this on a regular basis - like their wingnut merit badges will be revoked if they stop engaging in eye-popping double standards and situational ethics.
He wouldn't have if there had been a statewide recount, like what's happening in Minnesota right now. A post-election recount by the press showed that Gore got more statewide votes than Bush in 2000.
Just wait, Obama will surely do the exact same thing, except this time, you'll be all for it. (R) bad, (D) good.
Uh, no. See how pissed off we were when Obama voted for telecom immunity. Unlike modern Republicans, the Democratic base still believes in this quaint old notion called "ethics".
Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us.
They've only had the majority for the last two years - most of Bush's lawbreaking was set up long before that. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, denial of habeas corpus, secret prisons - all started before Democrats took back Congress.
Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a big fan of false equivalencies. The majority of the majority have stood up for our rights - how is that in the same boat as the party that has voted in lockstep to support Bush every step of the way?
That looks like you're assuming that all of the Perot vote would have gone to Clinton.
Not so much.
How would it have worked out if it were divided proportionately between the two major candidates? I'm sure Clinton still would have won, but considering that there were, as always, other minor candidates, would he have had an absolute majority?
The accepted wisdom from 1992 exit polls is that yes, Perot voters would have been split between George H.W. Bush and Clinton and the latter would have still won the election.
That's a separate problem, caused by our propensity to cram all our elections onto a single ballot. Aside from voting for the President, there are Senators and Representatives to vote for, state senators and representatives, mayors, city commissioners, judges, ballot initiatives...it's a mess. This is why you had 4,000 people in heavily Palm Beach county accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan in 2000.
Whereas Canada is able to complete counts in a matter of hours - by hand. As long as we are passing a Constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with popular voting, we can also use it to clean up our elections process.
Okay. But it's important to note that Bill Clinton didn't get an absolute majority of the popular vote either. In fact, Barack Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority of the popular vote.
One caveat that should be included with that factoid is that 1992 had a strong 3rd party candidate: Ross Perot. Take out Perot, and Clinton would have gotten a majority of the popular vote.
I have a concealed carry permit. Muggers, please put your own gun away and give me a minutes warning so I have time to get out my gun, cock it, and take the safety off. Burglars, please call in advance and leave your own guns at home. Otherwise I wont be able to use my Tiger Stone, I mean my hand gun. Thanks!
What's funny is that the same people pushing the "Obama isn't a citizen" story also pushed the "Clinton's killed Vince Foster and dozens of others" story. So if Hillary and Bill Clinton are ruthless murderers and are as secretive & ruthless as the KGB, how come they never used the citizenship arguments in the primaries, eh?
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
Yup. Like how they cowardly avoided a cut and dried ruling on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by ruling that the child's parent, Micheal Newdow, lacked standing because he only had custody for 10 days out of the month.
Only a concern with electronic voting. Other systems - levers, op scans, even punch cards - would be far too hard to swing an election on a national scale.
Understatement of the year. Pudge is the hero of dumb fat fucks everywhere - in one of his journals he talks about how Obama has the least amount of experience of any candidate in 70 years, obviously forgetting who's in the White House right now. And his candidate in the primaries was Fred Thompson, who's public service consists of 12 years of legislative experience...exactly what Obama has.
After all, (and I should be modded down for stating this lie), he hasn't actually completed a term in the last two offices he has held.
Fixed that for you. Obama served two and a half terms in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the U.S. Senate.
I would also like to know where all these conservative Concern Trolls were in 2000, when Al Gore (30 years public service) was running against George W. Bush, who's resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, driving companies into the ground, and serving for five years as the 5th most powerful politician in Texas (TX Constitution gives little power to the governor).
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.
I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either.
So in other words, your defense of Vista is, "it runs" - pretty underwhelming. But at the end of the day, Vista offers no compelling reasons to switch from XP, and several reasons not to - bloat, DRM & peformance.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing can cause a sprint unemployment (and off shoring) like the overly inflated wages cause by modern day unions.
Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline. The productivity of the American worker has surged over the last few decades, yet wages have stagnated. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation (who are rewarded regardless of their performance - GM's CEO makes $16 million a year despite the company losing $70 billion dollars) it would be over $50 an hour.
Because it works so well in the auto industry, why not?
Yes, it does. Detroit did just fine with decades with unions. Amazing how it's the fault of worker bees who want a decent wage for their work, and not the CEO of GM, who's presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and not only still has his job, but is still getting paid $16 million a year.
But I'd like to point out that, to professionals, it's grotesquely offensive. I have been programming professionally for over 20 years, have a 150 IQ, and absolutely adore what I do. I make Dilbert look like Jed Clampett. I do shit like clone Minesweeper in 4 hours from scratch just for the hell of it.
There's a term that comes to mind: idiot savant. Professional athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions are all rewarded for creativity and success, not just seniority.
...as do writers, directors, and actors. All these professions have strong unions and all their members are rewarded for creativity and success, not just seniority. There is nothing stopping tech workers with big egos from forming an Elitist Assholes Union and making six, seven figure salaries.
Um, since the Dems have had the majority, the FISA bill WITH telecomm immunity has passed, they handed our treasury over to the Wall Street Idiots who trashed our economy, the newest version of the Farm Bill has very little meaningful reform of Big Agribusiness in it, Guantanamo Bay still harbors prisoners who were tortured, Bush/Cheney still haven't been impeached, etc etc etc.
See the above, where I said "majority of the majority". The problem with a 51 nominal majority (Lieberman usually votes with the Republicans), is that it's usually easy for the Republicans to persuade a Bush Dog or ten to vote with them.
I'm a Dem, but I swear, I am NEVER going to vote for ANY incumbent ever again.
The problem isn't incumbency, it's shitty Dems. So vote to re-elect Russ Fiengold and Byron Dorgan, but toss Reid and Pelosi out on their asses.
Translation: you got pwned, so you respond with lies, gross distortions, and more lies. Say hi to the Whigs for us on your way out.
Bush was a two term governor of a large state before he was elected.
5 years as the 5th most powerful politician in the state of Texas (Texas constitution gives little power to the state governor). Prior to that, his resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, and driving companies into the ground in positions he was given by friends of his father. Every accomplishment in Bush's life has come from his last name. If he were George W. Smith, right now he'd be taking orders from a 17 year old assistant manager at a Burger King.
As opposed to Obama, who served 4 years in the U.S. Senate (from the 5th most populous state) and 8 years in the Illinois state senate (from a district with a higher population than the state of Alaska). Prior to that, he went to Columbia, was head of the Harvard law review, graduated magna cum laude, spent 3 years as a community organizer and taught Constitutional law for ten years. Obama earned all his accomplishments through intelligence, skill, and hard work - not based on his last name. Not even Bahgdad Bob would try to claim that Obama has less experience than Bush, much less Sarah Palin. But you do find Republicans doing this on a regular basis - like their wingnut merit badges will be revoked if they stop engaging in eye-popping double standards and situational ethics.
Who is the dumb fat fuck now?
Do you really want me to answer this question?
Yeah, but he lost the popular vote in Florida
He wouldn't have if there had been a statewide recount, like what's happening in Minnesota right now. A post-election recount by the press showed that Gore got more statewide votes than Bush in 2000.
Driving the modern Republican Party into Whig territory is important for our democracy.
Just wait, Obama will surely do the exact same thing, except this time, you'll be all for it. (R) bad, (D) good.
Uh, no. See how pissed off we were when Obama voted for telecom immunity. Unlike modern Republicans, the Democratic base still believes in this quaint old notion called "ethics".
Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us.
They've only had the majority for the last two years - most of Bush's lawbreaking was set up long before that. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, denial of habeas corpus, secret prisons - all started before Democrats took back Congress.
Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a big fan of false equivalencies. The majority of the majority have stood up for our rights - how is that in the same boat as the party that has voted in lockstep to support Bush every step of the way?
That looks like you're assuming that all of the Perot vote would have gone to Clinton.
Not so much.
How would it have worked out if it were divided proportionately between the two major candidates? I'm sure Clinton still would have won, but considering that there were, as always, other minor candidates, would he have had an absolute majority?
The accepted wisdom from 1992 exit polls is that yes, Perot voters would have been split between George H.W. Bush and Clinton and the latter would have still won the election.
That's a separate problem, caused by our propensity to cram all our elections onto a single ballot. Aside from voting for the President, there are Senators and Representatives to vote for, state senators and representatives, mayors, city commissioners, judges, ballot initiatives...it's a mess. This is why you had 4,000 people in heavily Palm Beach county accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan in 2000.
Whereas Canada is able to complete counts in a matter of hours - by hand. As long as we are passing a Constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with popular voting, we can also use it to clean up our elections process.
It still can take a very long time to resolve the popular vote.
Only because we cram a hundred races/initiatives onto our ballots. Canada manages to count all their votes, by hand, in a matter of hours.
Okay. But it's important to note that Bill Clinton didn't get an absolute majority of the popular vote either. In fact, Barack Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority of the popular vote.
One caveat that should be included with that factoid is that 1992 had a strong 3rd party candidate: Ross Perot. Take out Perot, and Clinton would have gotten a majority of the popular vote.
Just as soon as you wear a sign that says:
I have a concealed carry permit. Muggers, please put your own gun away and give me a minutes warning so I have time to get out my gun, cock it, and take the safety off. Burglars, please call in advance and leave your own guns at home. Otherwise I wont be able to use my Tiger Stone, I mean my hand gun. Thanks!
What's funny is that the same people pushing the "Obama isn't a citizen" story also pushed the "Clinton's killed Vince Foster and dozens of others" story. So if Hillary and Bill Clinton are ruthless murderers and are as secretive & ruthless as the KGB, how come they never used the citizenship arguments in the primaries, eh?
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
Yup. Like how they cowardly avoided a cut and dried ruling on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by ruling that the child's parent, Micheal Newdow, lacked standing because he only had custody for 10 days out of the month.
Your user name is highly appropriate.
Do you?
You can't prove a negative.
Nobody's seen his birth certificate except one judge who, for some strange reason, is keeping it hidden. Is this certificate fake? It's possible.
No, it's not possible, but I look forward to seeing 'The Obama Chronicles' being promoted by idiot conservatives.
Only a concern with electronic voting. Other systems - levers, op scans, even punch cards - would be far too hard to swing an election on a national scale.
Understatement of the year. Pudge is the hero of dumb fat fucks everywhere - in one of his journals he talks about how Obama has the least amount of experience of any candidate in 70 years, obviously forgetting who's in the White House right now. And his candidate in the primaries was Fred Thompson, who's public service consists of 12 years of legislative experience...exactly what Obama has.
After all, (and I should be modded down for stating this lie), he hasn't actually completed a term in the last two offices he has held.
Fixed that for you. Obama served two and a half terms in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the U.S. Senate.
I would also like to know where all these conservative Concern Trolls were in 2000, when Al Gore (30 years public service) was running against George W. Bush, who's resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, driving companies into the ground, and serving for five years as the 5th most powerful politician in Texas (TX Constitution gives little power to the governor).
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.
I've never had a problem with it, and that's on what was a relatively low-end machine I bought three years ago. All my hardware works fine, it never crashes, and it's easy to use. It doesn't seem at all slow to me, either.
So in other words, your defense of Vista is, "it runs" - pretty underwhelming. But at the end of the day, Vista offers no compelling reasons to switch from XP, and several reasons not to - bloat, DRM & peformance.
Uh, yeah, it is. Period. Vista is a shit sandwich. Deal.