It's about teaching the children... to be good little pinhead protesters!

apple0154 said:
Let's look at a little bit more of that article.
(Excerpt)"What collective bargaining has frequently meant in practice is that unions never have to concede any of the benefits they've won through a collective bargaining agreement unless they want to do so. In other words, when there's a budget crunch, the union--not the school district or local government--gets to choose between massive layoffs and slight benefits reductions."(End)

"When there's a budget crunch." What happens when there is a budget surplus? What happened through the "roaring 90s" when unemployment was down, schools and governments were raking in the tax dollars....did the schools or governments offer the teachers a bonus? So much as offer to re-fresh their lunch room? Maybe spring for a coat of paint?

Nooo. The schools/governments still dragged the teachers and other public employees through the normal tough negotiations. Hey, it's business, after all.

But now it's "poor us". We didn't give you more when we had more but now that we have less we expect you to take less. That is the definition of bullsh!t.
Click to expand...

No, bullshit is thinking that government workers deserved higher pay because taxpayers have paid more than the government needs.
 
apple0154 said:
Imagine knowing a fetus has this disease and insisting on bringing it to term resulting in a child enduring the inevitable suffering and finally dying before 6 years of age. Disgusting doesn't come close to describing such behavior and/or beliefs.
QUOTE]Since when do you get to play god?
Click to expand...
 
Damn Yankee said:
Back to the union issue. This is why collective bargaining is such a bad idea for government employees:



http://letters.salon.com/opinion/wa...rmalink/5646b9a63d82f4b23df34952c8a50a37.html
Click to expand...
That's complete and total fucking nonsense. First, why would that situation make one wit of difference if it occurred in the private sector vs the public? The answer? It wouldn't. Second, the union membership NEGOTIATES whether they want across the board pay cuts or are willing to accept layoffs. What you want is a lopsided, unilateral, system where management has all the say and fuck everyone else cause there aint going to be any negatiations. In other words you want to make a beggar and a wage slave out of anyone who isn't management (aka a good ole boy).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's complete and total fucking nonsense. First, why would that situation make one wit of difference if it occurred in the private sector vs the public? The answer? It wouldn't. Second, the union membership NEGOTIATES whether they want across the board pay cuts or are willing to accept layoffs. What you want is a lopsided, unilateral, system where management has all the say and fuck everyone else cause there aint going to be any negatiations. In other words you want to make a beggar and a wage slave out of anyone who isn't management (aka a good ole boy).
Click to expand...

1. In the private sector, business have an incentive to keep wages at market rates, so they can keep prices of their products and services competitive. Since governments are monopolies, there is no incentive to control wage costs. Also the union, through campaign donations, influences who they will be negotiating with. That's called cronyism, which you claim to hate.
2. Since the unions won't take an across-the-board pay cut, more layoffs will occur under collective bargaining. Also, the newer workers will all lose their jobs, not the least productive. This makes government even less efficient, and the taxpayers suffer.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You get a fucking grip apple...selling baby parts are a huge profitable business for abortionists, that you wish to equate the selling of them with that of autopsies perfomed on dead people is a typical off into the weeds style favored by you.
Click to expand...

"You get a fucking grip apple." :( Sounds like you're upset with me. I still love ya, you know. :)

As for abortion clinics making money what would be the point of simply destroying something that can be used to benefit mankind? The fetus is dead. If it can be used to benefit children who are living then I support that 100%. Of course, I believe in a spirit and the body is simply a vessel so whatever beneficial use it may have, it's all good.

Also, if that money reduces the cost of abortions then that's another plus. Remember the uproar about government funds and abortion? If the government won't help the poor obtain abortions and the clinic can offset some costs then it's a win-win situation.

Another one of your favored bs tactics is to take the worst kind of birth defects and equate them with the 97% of aborted babies that are done for the convenience of the woman...

For the sake of argument let's just talk about those 97% and see how well you can defend the 1,000,000 a year butchery...
Click to expand...

I mentioned the worst kind of defects in response to your statement, "you support killing children even when they are out of the womb if they have a disability up to the age of 6!"

Let's be clear here. I think bringing a child into the world knowing it has "the worst kind of defects" should be illegal! It is beyond comprehension why anyone would bring such a child into the world and then have medical personnel do all they can to prolong life while "the child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Death usually occurs before the age of four." Of course, there's the seizures and spasms and relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities, as well.

Prolonging the life of such children amounts to torture, nothing less.

As for the other 97% it doesn't take a lot of understanding to realize an unwanted child is not going to have a good life. Children brought up in homes where they are not wanted are predisposed to dropping out of school (parents don't give a damn), joining gangs (trying to replace the lack of being wanted/needed/appreciated) and end up in poverty or jail.

As if that wasn't enough many people who encourage bringing such children into the world are the very same ones who blame them for how their life turns out! The dropout. The gang member. The kid whose parents never helped them with their homework while they failed in school, the kid whose parents never instilled in them a sense of caring and self-worth, the kid who stole a chocolate bar because he was hungry.....now, as adults, they're the blight on society, the lazy bums who never took responsibility for their lives.

Where is the morality, not to mention the logic, to adamantly insist a child be brought into the world and then say, "You're on your own. Life is what you make it." After 18 years of abuse and neglect is one to expect those children will become responsible, contributing adults?

By the way, my kitty says hello to your kitty. :D
 
Damn Yankee said:
No, bullshit is thinking that government workers deserved higher pay because taxpayers have paid more than the government needs.
Click to expand...

At the time of negotiation the salaries were comparable.

Look, let's say you sign a contract with someone in November to build a deck in the spring. Meanwhile, your company slows down and you get a pay cut. Do you arbitrarily cut the price of the contract because you got a pay cut?

Until the contract for the workers come up for renewal no changes should be allowed. One likes to compare government workers to private enterprise so let's look at the private world.

Does a person who gets a pay cut arbitrarily cut their interest rate on their Visa? Lower their rent? Their car payment?

A contract is a contract except when it involves the government because the government can arbitrarily change it? What is the point of any contract with any government? Such nonsense would never be allowed in the "private world".
 
Damn Yankee said:
apple0154 said:
Imagine knowing a fetus has this disease and insisting on bringing it to term resulting in a child enduring the inevitable suffering and finally dying before 6 years of age. Disgusting doesn't come close to describing such behavior and/or beliefs.
QUOTE]Since when do you get to play god?
Click to expand...

Since when do you get to play the Marquis de Sade?

By the way do you believe God wants the child to suffer for 4 or 5 or 6 years; To slowly go blind, deaf, and unable to swallow while it's muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in accompanied by seizures and spasms and relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities?

Is that the type of God you worship and revere? If so, that's quite telling.
Click to expand...
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. In the private sector, business have an incentive to keep wages at market rates, so they can keep prices of their products and services competitive. Since governments are monopolies, there is no incentive to control wage costs. Also the union, through campaign donations, influences who they will be negotiating with. That's called cronyism, which you claim to hate.
2. Since the unions won't take an across-the-board pay cut, more layoffs will occur under collective bargaining. Also, the newer workers will all lose their jobs, not the least productive. This makes government even less efficient, and the taxpayers suffer.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
apple0154 said:
"You get a fucking grip apple." :( Sounds like you're upset with me. I still love ya, you know. :)

As for abortion clinics making money what would be the point of simply destroying something that can be used to benefit mankind? The fetus is dead. If it can be used to benefit children who are living then I support that 100%. Of course, I believe in a spirit and the body is simply a vessel so whatever beneficial use it may have, it's all good.

Also, if that money reduces the cost of abortions then that's another plus. Remember the uproar about government funds and abortion? If the government won't help the poor obtain abortions and the clinic can offset some costs then it's a win-win situation.

I mentioned the worst kind of defects in response to your statement, "you support killing children even when they are out of the womb if they have a disability up to the age of 6!"

Let's be clear here. I think bringing a child into the world knowing it has "the worst kind of defects" should be illegal! It is beyond comprehension why anyone would bring such a child into the world and then have medical personnel do all they can to prolong life while "the child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Death usually occurs before the age of four." Of course, there's the seizures and spasms and relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities, as well.

Prolonging the life of such children amounts to torture, nothing less.

As for the other 97% it doesn't take a lot of understanding to realize an unwanted child is not going to have a good life. Children brought up in homes where they are not wanted are predisposed to dropping out of school (parents don't give a damn), joining gangs (trying to replace the lack of being wanted/needed/appreciated) and end up in poverty or jail.

As if that wasn't enough many people who encourage bringing such children into the world are the very same ones who blame them for how their life turns out! The dropout. The gang member. The kid whose parents never helped them with their homework while they failed in school, the kid whose parents never instilled in them a sense of caring and self-worth, the kid who stole a chocolate bar because he was hungry.....now, as adults, they're the blight on society, the lazy bums who never took responsibility for their lives.

Where is the morality, not to mention the logic, to adamantly insist a child be brought into the world and then say, "You're on your own. Life is what you make it." After 18 years of abuse and neglect is one to expect those children will become responsible, contributing adults?

By the way, my kitty says hello to your kitty. :D
Click to expand...

First off apple- You again wish to ignore the 97% of abortions that have always really been at issue by appealing to the most tragic of birth defects. These birth defects are not even part of the abortion equasion-the parents of such children have no interest in this argument.

I referenced your support of the practice that would make it legal to kill children up to the age of 6 based upon your idea of what is a life worth living...so your line of morality is definitley skewed from the majority of the population. Tay Sachs children die-there is no cure. Their lives are not painful at the end. I have a friend who has described the awefullness of the disease. That said she also explained that these children do not suffer in the way you'd like everyone to think- They are loved and cared for and comforted-they nor their parents wished for this to be the reality of their life-Tay Sachs is usually diagnosed at 6 mos-not in the womb. But you don't kill your child because it has a disease-you comfort the child.

You personally have absolutely no proof that all of these aborted babies would have a "bad life". And what fucking right does a government or another person have to ever make law that kills another human being based on that kind of assumption? Arrogance and selfishness are the underlying motives for that kind of decision making. This is again about those 97% of aborted babies...
 
apple0154 said:
At the time of negotiation the salaries were comparable.

Look, let's say you sign a contract with someone in November to build a deck in the spring. Meanwhile, your company slows down and you get a pay cut. Do you arbitrarily cut the price of the contract because you got a pay cut?

Until the contract for the workers come up for renewal no changes should be allowed. One likes to compare government workers to private enterprise so let's look at the private world.

Does a person who gets a pay cut arbitrarily cut their interest rate on their Visa? Lower their rent? Their car payment?

A contract is a contract except when it involves the government because the government can arbitrarily change it? What is the point of any contract with any government? Such nonsense would never be allowed in the "private world".
Click to expand...

Stick to the issue. The public employees contract is up for negotiation on an annual basis.
 
apple0154 said:
Since when do you get to play the Marquis de Sade?

By the way do you believe God wants the child to suffer for 4 or 5 or 6 years; To slowly go blind, deaf, and unable to swallow while it's muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in accompanied by seizures and spasms and relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities?

Is that the type of God you worship and revere? If so, that's quite telling.
Click to expand...

Not only do you not get to play God, you don't get to judge him either.
 
Ice Dancer said:
First off apple- You again wish to ignore the 97% of abortions that have always really been at issue by appealing to the most tragic of birth defects. These birth defects are not even part of the abortion equasion-the parents of such children have no interest in this argument.

I referenced your support of the practice that would make it legal to kill children up to the age of 6 based upon your idea of what is a life worth living...so your line of morality is definitley skewed from the majority of the population. Tay Sachs children die-there is no cure. Their lives are not painful at the end. I have a friend who has described the awefullness of the disease. That said she also explained that these children do not suffer in the way you'd like everyone to think- They are loved and cared for and comforted-they nor their parents wished for this to be the reality of their life-Tay Sachs is usually diagnosed at 6 mos-not in the womb. But you don't kill your child because it has a disease-you comfort the child.

You personally have absolutely no proof that all of these aborted babies would have a "bad life". And what fucking right does a government or another person have to ever make law that kills another human being based on that kind of assumption? Arrogance and selfishness are the underlying motives for that kind of decision making. This is again about those 97% of aborted babies...
Click to expand...

The babies don't suffer? You wrote, "Their lives are not painful at the end." No, I suppose their lives aren't painful at the end after they have suffered from seizures and spasms and being unable to swallow and finally, losing any mental ability/awareness. I suppose after slowly devolving into madness/insanity/total mental incompetence they don't show symptoms of pain.

I wonder how many anti-abortionists have been to a hospital specializing in sick children. Just as some people insist on those physicians who provide abortions being obliged to explain the procedure, how big the fetus is, etc., perhaps those who insist on bearing a child afflicted with a genetic illness should be required to visit a hospital that specializes in those illnesses. Make it mandatory for the person to view the agony those children endure, on a daily basis, before going through with the delivery. Wouldn't that be fair?

As for killing a human being abortion prevents a fetus from developing into a human being. Allowing a process to continue for nine months, knowing the result will be a human being who will suffer and die within a few years, is a good thing? Good for what, exactly?

The arrogance and selfishness comes from those who insist human beings go through the suffering.

As for unwanted/abused/neglected children having a bad life all one has to do is look at the prison population.

If one wants to reduce the number of abortions start by looking after the children already here. Show us those born in poverty will have equal access to a university education and a decent job. Show us single mothers will have day care and support. Show us those kids will have a proper diet and decent clothes to wear. Just show us the anti-abortionists really do give a damn. That's all.

(Excerpt) Although the incidence of child abuse and neglect has been decreasing in recent years, more than 1.25 million, or 1 in every 58 children in the United States, were abused in 2006.

An average of nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect (1,760 in 2007).

Children in low socioeconomic families have more than three times the rate of child abuse and seven times the rate of neglect than other children. (End)
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_stats.htm

That, in a society where abortion is freely available. Imagine a society where abortion was illegal. Imagine a society where people had to bear children they did not want.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Stick to the issue. The public employees contract is up for negotiation on an annual basis.
Click to expand...

Fine. Until then don't change the contribution rate to benefits. When the contract comes up for renewal ask the employees to vote on whether or not they want to be represented by the union. If yes, the union negotiates on their behalf and if the union decides it's better to keep fewer teachers and pay them a decent wage as opposed to no lay-offs and having disgruntled employees, so be it.

If the government wants employees they pay the price for them or they don't get them. Isn't that the way the system you support, the capitalist system, is supposed to work?
 
apple0154 said:
Fine. Until then don't change the contribution rate to benefits. When the contract comes up for renewal ask the employees to vote on whether or not they want to be represented by the union. If yes, the union negotiates on their behalf and if the union decides it's better to keep fewer teachers and pay them a decent wage as opposed to no lay-offs and having disgruntled employees, so be it.

If the government wants employees they pay the price for them or they don't get them. Isn't that the way the system you support, the capitalist system, is supposed to work?
Click to expand...

Regulated capitalism breaks up monoplies as they form.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Not only do you not get to play God, you don't get to judge him either.
Click to expand...

First, we have to determine if the deity is in fact a God and not just some technologically superior alien.

There is a rumor floating around that the "Star Wars" arming of space put forward by the US government was not to protect us from the communists but to be able to defend the planet. While some folks may question the viability or logic of trying to protect ourselves from such a superior force consider a person armed with the best fire arm in the jungles of the Amazon. The ability of a tribesman to sneak up on the person and throw a spear would immediately neutralize the individual carrying the fire arm.

If our visitors are traveling through dimensions there may be a lapse between the time they appear here and the time it takes to determine the location of space weapons. In other words they may not be able to see what's here until they actually materialize which might give us an edge.

Lastly, if memory serves correctly, the Bible mentions people will be warring against "God" even as He returns. If that's the case it raises many questions, the first being how could one possibly war against an almighty entity? What possible threat could we be to God?

Perhaps someone better versed with the Bible can shed more light on this.

Note to Ice Dancer: I seem to recall you're Biblically knowledgeable. Perhaps you could help us out. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Not only do you not get to play God, you don't get to judge him either.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have a God, DY... He claims he does, but before he can finish the sentence where he claims to believe in God, he is refuting and disbelieving God! Apple is one of those liberals who says; "Of course I believe in God... I am looking at him in the mirror right now!"

You see, with HIS kinda "God" you can believe anything you wish, you can cross the boundaries of decency, honesty, and respect for human life, and it's not a problem! You can hate, steal, lie, cheat... doesn't matter!
 
Lastly, if memory serves correctly, the Bible mentions people will be warring against "God" even as He returns. If that's the case it raises many questions, the first being how could one possibly war against an almighty entity? What possible threat could we be to God?

Perhaps someone better versed with the Bible can shed more light on this.
Click to expand...

Revelations speaks of a "great war" between good and evil in the end time. When this happens, according to Revelations, the rapture has already occurred, and followers of God have ascended to heaven. The "great war" is between good and evil, not people.
 
apple0154 said:
First, we have to determine if the deity is in fact a God and not just some technologically superior alien.

There is a rumor floating around that the "Star Wars" arming of space put forward by the US government was not to protect us from the communists but to be able to defend the planet. While some folks may question the viability or logic of trying to protect ourselves from such a superior force consider a person armed with the best fire arm in the jungles of the Amazon. The ability of a tribesman to sneak up on the person and throw a spear would immediately neutralize the individual carrying the fire arm.

If our visitors are traveling through dimensions there may be a lapse between the time they appear here and the time it takes to determine the location of space weapons. In other words they may not be able to see what's here until they actually materialize which might give us an edge.

Lastly, if memory serves correctly, the Bible mentions people will be warring against "God" even as He returns. If that's the case it raises many questions, the first being how could one possibly war against an almighty entity? What possible threat could we be to God?

Perhaps someone better versed with the Bible can shed more light on this.

Note to Ice Dancer: I seem to recall you're Biblically knowledgeable. Perhaps you could help us out. :)
Click to expand...

A real man would admit that he lost the argument instead of just being silly and obtuse, like you so aptly demonstrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top