A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, Hank, your inability to stand up for your beliefs makes you, if anything, less attractive.

My beliefs are I like money!!!!!! I cashed that check. And who are you to tell me I am, or should be, anti-union? Are you going to start living by my perceived sterotypes of a liberal?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My beliefs are I like money!!!!!! I cashed that check. And who are you to tell me I am, or should be, anti-union? Are you going to start living by my perceived sterotypes of a liberal?

Um, so, you are pro-union? I guess given that you are more self-interested than, like, consistent or principled or anything, given your location you might be. Or, you might be virulently anti-union.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The ultimate idiocy and ideology of "global warming" will be shown through science.

No ideological sentiment there, huh?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
And, "choices"? Individual investors who can't spend tons of time on research, or who don't have the skills to do research, don't do well picking investments. So, practically speaking, we'll end up with ten or so government-approved boring, safe, low-return investment vehicles. Why not just go back to the lockbox approach, and save all the mess of setting up a new system?

2. And individual investors who are poor, and therefore most likley to be fully dependent on SS, and for whom the risk of losing money in a private account will be losing any means of supporting themselves in retirement or their survivors after death, should make the most conservative choices. Bringing their returns pretty close to .... well, SS returns. But at much higher administrative cost.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sugar i handled grievances for the union- do you find that attractive? (Fed labor law is the most frustrating area of law I've heard of- you really can only win on procedure- did management fuck up in documenting and setting the punishment. When a manager wants to screw someone for bad reason he'd be really careful- when the employee deserved to get fired the manager would be lax and not cross all the Ts. We could usually only help the truly guilty.)

Keep that in mind next time you want to complain about teacher's unions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Adder
Keep that in mind next time you want to complain about teacher's unions.

Um, I don't think he was saying that the union was doing a good thing.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
The ultimate idiocy and ideology of "global warming" will be shown through science. Science is a process, not a result.

Um... idiocy and ideology? You mean about the causes of global warming rather than the fact of it, right?

But out of curiousity, what ideology is it that drives the hypothesis that the observed increase in temperatures are caused by greenhouse gasses? Are the greens just anti-car because they dislike the concept of cross-country mobility? Or maybe they just dislike people who live in Detroit?

[Adder]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, I don't think he was saying that the union was doing a good thing.

No, but he at least recognized that the union had no choice in who they defended, and that if the bosses did their job, the union wouldn't be defending the crappy employees.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Adder
Um... idiocy and ideology? You mean about the causes of global warming rather than the fact of it, right?

The "fact" of it.

If you're bored, read http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ocean-1.html . It's older (1997?), but he laid it out well, and the science (and data) hasn't changed since he wrote it. And Stevenson's no poli-hack.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
But out of curiousity, what ideology is it that drives the hypothesis that the observed increase in temperatures are caused by greenhouse gasses? Are the greens just anti-car because they dislike the concept of cross-country mobility? Or maybe they just dislike people who live in Detroit?

The scientists who "document" global warming have devoted their professional lives to studying "whether we are responsible for global warming."

Tons of people study things for decades and then find there were chasing a dead end- here "no we really couldn't change the climate" or worse "there is no global warming pattern."

You are a guy who has been studying climatic changes since 1980- will your legacy be:

"Adder was the one to convince us all that we have changed the environment and we need to stop all fossil fuel burning. Adder, it can said saved life as we know it on Earth"
President Georgette Bush III - 2098

or-

"In the late 1900's a theory sprung up that man had caused climatic changes. By 2050 that had ben discredited with the discovery of precisely identifying temperature changes, blah blah"

Scientific Iraquian 2080

When you look at, and write up, your results- which one you hoping for?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Adder
No, but he at least recognized that the union had no choice in who they defended, and that if the bosses did their job, the union wouldn't be defending the crappy employees.

Psst, Adder. . . arbitrary, capricious or bad-faith. Unions definitely do have a choice as to who they will defend.

aV

[Adder]

Originally posted by andViolins
Psst, Adder. . . arbitrary, capricious or bad-faith. Unions definitely do have a choice as to who they will defend.

aV

And how are to able to tell who they are if the boss doesn't document the reasons for his actions? Kinda looks like arbitrary, capricious or bad-faith then, doesn't it?

Or are you suggesting that the unions should undertake their own evaluations and start cutting off their dues paying members?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The scientists who "document" global warming have devoted their professional lives to studying "whether we are responsible for global warming."

Tons of people study things for decades and then find there were chasing a dead end- here "no we really couldn't change the climate" or worse "there is no global warming pattern."

You are a guy who has been studying climatic changes since 1980- will your legacy be:

"Adder was the one to convince us all that we have changed the environment and we need to stop all fossil fuel burning. Adder, it can said saved life as we know it on Earth"
President Georgette Bush III - 2098

or-

"In the late 1900's a theory sprung up that man had caused climatic changes. By 2050 that had ben discredited with the discovery of precisely identifying temperature changes, blah blah"

Scientific Iraquian 2080

When you look at, and write up, your results- which one you hoping for?

1 million years ago, a caveman scientist posited that man's failure to burn fossil fuels was the cause of the Ice Age.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Adder
And how are to able to tell who they are if the boss doesn't document the reasons for his actions? Kinda looks like arbitrary, capricious or bad-faith then, doesn't it?

Or are you suggesting that the unions should undertake their own evaluations and start cutting off their dues paying members?

Adder, you don't practice labor law. I do. You really should stop now.

aV

[Skeks in the city]

If Moslems are so moderate, why is it that the US needs to issue announcements that US forces are not harvesting Iraqi organs after a Saudi Arabian newspaper reports that they are? If they are so moderate, why don't Moslems immediately know that the Saudi newspaper is full of shit?

US embassy's denial