#1 2011-10-12 20:25:17
In Florida.
"Fluoride is a toxic substance," said tea party activist Tony Caso of Palm Harbor. "This is all part of an agenda that's being pushed forth by the so-called globalists in our government and the world government to keep the people stupid so they don't realize what's going on."
Don't pretend you're surprised.
Offline
#2 2011-10-12 21:05:27
You know, seeing as the Koch Bro's came out of the original anti-flouride and anti-comic book movement, this indeed is not a surprise.
Offline
#3 2011-10-12 21:11:25
"I don't think the county government should be telling people they have to have fluoride in the water," Morroni said.
I agree. I'll take the next step: I don't think the government should be telling people they DON'T have to have shit in the water.
Offline
#4 2011-10-14 11:59:37
Offline
#5 2011-10-14 19:45:51
Great oratory. Too bad the shitty music pretty much ruins it.
Offline
#6 2011-10-14 21:42:54
George Orr wrote:
Great oratory. Too bad the shitty music pretty much ruins it.
Nah. It's all good drama.
Offline
#8 2011-10-15 16:53:15
“Most people view it as a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll,” said one top hedge fund manager.
“It’s not a middle-class uprising,”
Offline
#11 2011-10-16 04:25:25
George Orr wrote:
In Florida.
"Fluoride is a toxic substance," said tea party activist Tony Caso of Palm Harbor. "This is all part of an agenda that's being pushed forth by the so-called globalists in our government and the world government to keep the people stupid so they don't realize what's going on."
Don't pretend you're surprised.
The delicious irony is that tea is a natural source of flouride.
Oh wait, is this "Boston" or "Mad Hatter"?
Offline
#14 2011-10-20 19:14:40
That compares with JPMorgan’s deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm’s $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show.
Offline
#16 2011-10-20 23:18:10
opsec wrote:
My favorite solvents are caffeinated.
New Scientist does the math.
1318 companies representing 20% of global operating revenues own the majority of the world's blue chip and manufacturing firms. Thorough their interlocking investments, these self same oinks collectively control a further 60% of global revenues.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 … world.html
Offline
#17 2011-10-25 16:10:08
Offline
#18 2011-10-25 20:07:26
Four years later, the eat-shit-and-die message is fundamentally the same.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#19 2011-10-26 01:47:57
Offline
#21 2011-10-26 20:55:51
I can't find Dusty's thread--guess it's fallen too far down--and this appears to be the default OWS Thread anyway:
"Survived 2 tours in Iraq only to get done in by one's countrymen."
Don't look at the video.
Offline
#22 2011-10-26 23:46:54
Serious question--why do OWS protests get dispersed and why are arrests made? What are they doing different than tea party protesters? Is it a matter of permits?
And Dusty, don't answer this by just saying "it's the Man, bro."
Last edited by ah297900 (2011-10-26 23:47:02)
Offline
#23 2011-10-27 00:49:37
It's a matter of enticement; the Occupy protesters are young and looking for confrontation. A few cities were dumb enough to play along.
Offline
#24 2011-10-27 01:18:11
Emmeran wrote:
It's a matter of enticement; the Occupy protesters are young and looking for confrontation. A few cities were dumb enough to play along.
Out of touch; no they are not looking for confrontation, this is something different. I have been in contact with many, including organizers of the local one here in P-Town, who in fact are close friends with my son. This is not about fighting in the streets.
Offline
#25 2011-10-27 01:34:12
ah297900 wrote:
Serious question--why do OWS protests get dispersed and why are arrests made? What are they doing different than tea party protesters? Is it a matter of permits?
And Dusty, don't answer this by just saying "it's the Man, bro."
They are questioning the system. They are not owned by a corporation, ala Koch Bros' (had to get Bro's) in there. I could go on, but am working on some stuff.
Hope you are all doing well, and we are on the edge of something not seen for many generations.
Offline
#26 2011-10-27 02:13:02
ah297900 wrote:
Serious question--why do OWS protests get dispersed and why are arrests made? What are they doing different than tea party protesters?
Squatting and excreting; not necessarily in that order.
Offline
#27 2011-10-27 04:24:14
choad wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
Serious question--why do OWS protests get dispersed and why are arrests made? What are they doing different than tea party protesters?
Squatting and excreting; not necessarily in that order.
That and not being funded by corporations.
Offline
#28 2011-11-01 21:16:58
And here's another fine example: we invented this technology but our 'leaders' are either too stupid or too paranoid to pursue it.
Offline
#29 2011-11-02 00:27:04
Tall Paul wrote:
That and not being funded by corporations.
Ahh, but the Unions have stepped in to corrupt this little game with money and lest you forget Unions are mirror reflections of the corporations; corrupting things the other way.
I say again, just a youthful Tea Party
Offline
#30 2011-11-02 01:57:32
Tall Paul wrote:
And here's another fine example: we invented this technology but our 'leaders' are either too stupid or too paranoid to pursue it.
Derek Tearne wrote:
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor. "If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Online
#31 2011-11-02 03:03:32
Emmeran wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
That and not being funded by corporations.
Ahh, but the Unions have stepped in to corrupt this little game with money and lest you forget Unions are mirror reflections of the corporations; corrupting things the other way.
I say again, just a youthful Tea Party
Nonsense. You need to read, and get out a bit more Em.
Offline
#32 2011-11-02 08:42:10
Emmeran wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
That and not being funded by corporations.
Ahh, but the Unions have stepped in to corrupt this little game with money and lest you forget Unions are mirror reflections of the corporations; corrupting things the other way.
I say again, just a youthful Tea Party
The consequences of unions' little games are better pay and benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The consequences of corporations' little game are HUGE profits for a handful of people and layoffs for hundreds of thousands.
Pick one.
Offline
#33 2011-11-02 11:18:46
ah297900 wrote:
The consequences of unions' little games are... ...HUGE profits for a handful of people and layoffs for hundreds of thousands.
Offline
#34 2011-11-02 13:20:27
http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/gold … rotestors/
Whilst we are jerking off about the 'secret missions of practically non-existent unions', perhaps this should catch your attention.
Offline
#35 2011-11-05 11:44:46
They've done it again. Maybe they enjoy it?
"They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours"
Em wrote:
I say again, just a youthful Tea Party
Go ahead and deny as hard as you can, for as long as you can, since it seems to comfort you. These offhand dismissals do not affect reality. I don't know what is going to come of this movement, but good or bad it will be significant, whatever it is.
Last edited by George Orr (2011-11-05 11:48:05)
Offline
#36 2011-11-05 19:33:03
Sorry Em: The unions (like the OWS crowd) banded together to prevent others from being screwed by unregulated capitalism, the teabaggers have banded together to screw the poor. Go open up a history book and find out how the union movement started in the States, and see which modern group each side most resembles.
Offline
#37 2011-11-05 21:51:12
Lovely bits all; now please explain to me how the public service unions have helped us with back end loading, unlimited overtime and auto dues reduction (for any employee union or not). The public employee unions are a flat out conflict of interest; particularly so when they negotiate with state executives who are also union members.
You fucking liberals are as bad as the conservatives at raping the public, the only difference is that you try to convince us you're on our side afterwards.
Offline
#38 2011-11-05 22:34:22
Emmeran wrote:
Lovely bits all; now please explain to me how the public service unions have helped us with back end loading, unlimited overtime and auto dues reduction (for any employee union or not). The public employee unions are a flat out conflict of interest; particularly so when they negotiate with state executives who are also union members.
You fucking liberals are as bad as the conservatives at raping the public, the only difference is that you try to convince us you're on our side afterwards.
Emmeran, I could refute every one of your points, but there is no point to it. I've watched you over a few years become the absolute worst kind of knee-jerk conservative. Go to redstate.com or some other site that you regularly frequent where you can add your voice to the chorus of ignorant-but-sincerely-passionate voices and convince yourself you're one of the real intellectuals. You'll be a lot happier badmouthing the "Left" and "liberals" there.
Offline
#40 2011-11-07 10:52:31
tojo2000 wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Lovely bits all; now please explain to me how the public service unions have helped us with back end loading, unlimited overtime and auto dues reduction (for any employee union or not). The public employee unions are a flat out conflict of interest; particularly so when they negotiate with state executives who are also union members.
You fucking liberals are as bad as the conservatives at raping the public, the only difference is that you try to convince us you're on our side afterwards.Emmeran, I could refute every one of your points, but there is no point to it. I've watched you over a few years become the absolute worst kind of knee-jerk conservative. Go to redstate.com or some other site that you regularly frequent where you can add your voice to the chorus of ignorant-but-sincerely-passionate voices and convince yourself you're one of the real intellectuals. You'll be a lot happier badmouthing the "Left" and "liberals" there.
Well look at that, Tojo has awoken.
Offline
#41 2011-11-07 12:08:36
Emmeran wrote:
Lovely bits all; now please explain to me how the public service unions have helped us with back end loading, unlimited overtime and auto dues reduction (for any employee union or not). The public employee unions are a flat out conflict of interest; particularly so when they negotiate with state executives who are also union members.
You fucking liberals are as bad as the conservatives at raping the public, the only difference is that you try to convince us you're on our side afterwards.
Partly true, partly objectionable, partly neither.
I'm not sure what you are referring to with the term back-end loading. A typical problem with a labor agreement is that the union will push for front-end loading whereby cost-of-living adjustments are jacked up in the first year and decline thereafter. The result is an excessive bump early on, that then is part of the baseline for future bumps, thus exaggerating them throughout the duration of the agreement. I take it you are referring to something else with the complaint about back-end loading.
Unlimited overtime surely could be a problem if union members are assigning/approving the hours. Does that happen? I really don't know.
Auto dues deduction does not quite seem like "rape" (or any other over-the-top verb you may choose) if all union-eligible employees reap the benefits of the union's efforts. I understand that those who don't want to join the union don't want to pay dues, also a rational argument, although it allows freeloaders to get the benefit of union bargaining.
Are there really any cases of unions negotiating with union members on contract terms? My experience is somewhat limited, but in the federal sector, management employees are not eligible to join the unions. Having the union on both sides of the table would be a problem if it actually happens.
Finally, I realize that generalizing is fun, and I also realize that you are not simply a conservative, so please don't make the mistake of casting me as fitting neatly into your concluding dichotomy. I am not a big fan of public sector unions, having spent a few years on the management side of the relationship (and never on the labor side).
Offline
#42 2011-11-07 13:46:55
Ah heck, Maybe the free marketers have a point. When you deregulate you just let the market decide how to price the risk it can bear.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2011-11-07 13:47:15)
Offline
#43 2011-11-07 14:05:18
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
Ah heck, Maybe the free marketers have a point. When you deregulate you just let the market decide how to price the risk it can bear.
Offline
