Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
I'm not sure where I ever stated that I "believe" anything in regard to the Board, secret ballot elections or card-check recognition.

I really didn't mean to start a labor-law melee. I brought up the Meyerson column because the point he made re how employee preferences towards their union must be expressed as matter of law -- by secret ballot or otherwise -- seemed responsive in some way to whatever Slave was trying to say. To the extent that Slave professed indignation that a worker's right to a secret ballot might be done away with by the card-check legislation, presumably then he would have a problem with the 9/29 NLRB decision. Except that we know that he wouldn't, because his concern was tactical, and his abiding principle is that unions and Democrats are evil and lazy, and his response would be identify some other purported hypocrisy on the part of The Left somewhere else.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
his abiding principle is that unions and Democrats are evil and lazy, and his response would be identify some other purported hypocrisy on the part of The Left somewhere else.

My point was that the guy who wrote and, by implication, you, are intellectually lazy. But not evil, although the guy who wrote it might be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My point was that the guy who wrote and, by implication, you, are intellectually lazy. But not evil, although the guy who wrote it might be.

The blogger? Oops, I mean the Washington Post op-ed writer? Who wrote the thing misquoting the NLRB web site? Oops, I mean the thing that described the NLRA accurately?

You should quit while you're behind. With your schtick here, you're the last guy to accuse anyone else of intellectual laziness.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The blogger? Oops, I mean the Washington Post op-ed writer? Who wrote the thing misquoting the NLRB web site? Oops, I mean the thing that described the NLRA accurately?

You should quit while you're behind. With your schtick here, you're the last guy to accuse anyone else of intellectual laziness.

ummm, the one person who understands labor law said it was bullshit, and the panels were different and ahhhh, an op-ed is an opinion. and he isn't saying Bush changed the act, he packed the board with hacks. did the board's webpage change under bush?

402-20

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
has enough skeletons to form a marching band and for the average american they are still in the closet.

Grab a baton and join me in front. I'm wearing a fuzzy swe...er, hat.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I really didn't mean to start a labor-law melee. I brought up the Meyerson column because the point he made re how employee preferences towards their union must be expressed as matter of law -- by secret ballot or otherwise -- seemed responsive in some way to whatever Slave was trying to say. To the extent that Slave professed indignation that a worker's right to a secret ballot might be done away with by the card-check legislation, presumably then he would have a problem with the 9/29 NLRB decision. Except that we know that he wouldn't, because his concern was tactical, and his abiding principle is that unions and Democrats are evil and lazy, and his response would be identify some other purported hypocrisy on the part of The Left somewhere else.

I was - perhaps badly - pointing out that a union worker's dues, notwithstanding his affiliation, automatically go to a Dem candidate.

Joining the union, he effectively "pledges" his support of the Dem candidate.

Unlike the VA nonsense, that monetary vote is binding.

[SlaveNoMore]

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

This conference is a fucking embarrassment.

Maybe you should impeach him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the one person who understands labor law said it was bullshit

Your synopsis of aV's posts is considerably less accurate than that op-ed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I was - perhaps badly - pointing out that a union worker's dues, notwithstanding his affiliation, automatically go to a Dem candidate.

Parents -- this is what happens if you let your kids read The National Review. Just say no.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jesus, man. I'm still in my roast beef years. I haven't hit beef jerky territory yet.

You would be surprised how good some 46-year olds look when you meet them at a dark bar and have been drinking.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Parents -- this is what happens if you let your kids read The National Review. Just say no.

That Papist rag? Bitch, please.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
You would be surprised how good some 46-year olds look when you meet them at a dark bar and have been drinking.

I'd hit that sober, just because. I dig the Mrs. Robinson thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That Papist rag? Bitch, please.

I think that magazine is pretty funny. It's also an amazing example of how a clever writer can dance completely around the other side's near logical and near infallible proposition for 3000 words and come up with a counterpoint.

It's a great example of ideologues being their own worst enemies.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Parents -- this is what happens if you let your kids read The National Review. Just say no.

Indeed. All those millions of rank and file Republican AFL-CIO and Teamsters members would be shocked.