Ford Gives Finger to America and American Employees

"The Trucker" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:46:27 +0000, Siemens Tech wrote:

<...>

>> Good software types set their own hours for the most part, and they're
>> paid very well to work those kinds of hours. I haven't seen any drops
>> in those types of wages. The additional perks such as free open
>> kitchens with every kind of food in the world, exotic coffees, and even
>> a cook in some cases is hardly considered a poor working condition. Some
>> never even come into work at all, they work from home. Nobody is
>> whipping them to work those hours.
>
> That isn't actually true.

It certainly is.


> In the USA you work 80 hrs or you don't work at all...

Maybe in some industries, but not software.

Look, I'm on your side WRT NHI -- I think it's desperately needed. All I'm
saying is that the software industry isn't a poster child for the issue.

Jim

On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>

Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.

>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.

> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
> yours.

Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?

You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
you do that you should think of what happens when government is
controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.

>> Do you democrats really want republicans having that sort of control
>> over your lives? Do you republicans really want democrats having it?
>> Once it's in the political system, you no longer get to make individual
>> decisions. Group decisions will be made for you by those who control
>> the central government. Those decisions will very often be wrong.
>> That's just the nature of central planning.

> I trust the medical profession to make those decisions and that is who
> will be making those decisions. I certainly do not want you making such
> decisions and given a proper representative government I will not be EVER
> have to worry about you getting anywhere close to such a decision making
> position.

HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn you'rs stupid. The
medical class won't be deciding jack ****. It will be the political
class deciding what is best _FOR THEM_ and the _SPECIAL INTERESTS_ they
serve. You stupid ignorant people. You're going to learn the hard way.

HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
as releases in the NYC subway)

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:18:30 -0700, Clave wrote:

> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:46:27 +0000, Siemens Tech wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>> Good software types set their own hours for the most part, and they're
>>> paid very well to work those kinds of hours. I haven't seen any drops
>>> in those types of wages. The additional perks such as free open
>>> kitchens with every kind of food in the world, exotic coffees, and even
>>> a cook in some cases is hardly considered a poor working condition. Some
>>> never even come into work at all, they work from home. Nobody is
>>> whipping them to work those hours.
>>
>> That isn't actually true.
>
> It certainly is.
>
>
>> In the USA you work 80 hrs or you don't work at all...
>
> Maybe in some industries, but not software.
>
> Look, I'm on your side WRT NHI -- I think it's desperately needed. All I'm
> saying is that the software industry isn't a poster child for the issue.

So you may be right about software. I had my own one man corp for 20
years doing consulting (mostly sys admin in heterogeneous shops) and got
my health care as a "spouse" from my wife's GOOD software job. I was
working part time in 1998 making as much as I did working 80 hrs a week as
a trucker in 2003. Being free of that health insurance hook in the ass is
a great boon to wages. Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the
Seattle Times for software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>
>
> Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.
>
>>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.
>
>> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
>> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
>> yours.
>
> Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?

I'm retired, moron.

> You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
> you do that you should think of what happens when government is
> controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
> outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.

Like I said: You are incapable of absorbing what is at the link below.

>>> Do you democrats really want republicans having that sort of control
>>> over your lives? Do you republicans really want democrats having it?
>>> Once it's in the political system, you no longer get to make individual
>>> decisions. Group decisions will be made for you by those who control
>>> the central government. Those decisions will very often be wrong.
>>> That's just the nature of central planning.
>
>> I trust the medical profession to make those decisions and that is who
>> will be making those decisions. I certainly do not want you making such
>> decisions and given a proper representative government I will not be EVER
>> have to worry about you getting anywhere close to such a decision making
>> position.
>
> HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn you'rs stupid. The
> medical class won't be deciding jack ****. It will be the political
> class deciding what is best _FOR THEM_ and the _SPECIAL INTERESTS_ they
> serve. You stupid ignorant people. You're going to learn the hard way.

Sure...

> HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
> ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
> AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
> history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
> as releases in the NYC subway)

Like I said: Incapable of absorbing the data at the link.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>
>>
>> Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.
>>
>>>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>>>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>>>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.
>>
>>> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
>>> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
>>> yours.
>>
>> Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?
>
> I'm retired, moron.

Same difference, tard.

>> You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
>> you do that you should think of what happens when government is
>> controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
>> outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.
>
> Like I said: You are incapable of absorbing what is at the link below.

The link is bull****. Let me tell you why it's bull****. Because you
don't understand the problem. It's not about district size, it's that
the federal government is unaccountable to the state governments. Direct
election of senators is what decoupled the federal government and made
it so that it could blackmail the states and increase its power.

>> HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>> ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>> AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
>> history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
>> as releases in the NYC subway)

> Like I said: Incapable of absorbing the data at the link.

Hey dufus, your link doesn't change the nature of government or the
nature of central control. Increasing the number of congress critters by
1300 doesn't fix a damn thing, it just increases the number of offices.
Do you really think that the powers that be couldn't controll 1840
congress critters the way it does 535 (including the senate)? Of course
it could. Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
is today. District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
congressman is now.

Central government is the problem. Trying to make central government
accountable is like trying to make a pig fly.

"The Trucker" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:18:30 -0700, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> Look, I'm on your side WRT NHI -- I think it's desperately needed. All
>> I'm
>> saying is that the software industry isn't a poster child for the issue.
>
> So you may be right about software. I had my own one man corp for 20
> years doing consulting (mostly sys admin in heterogeneous shops) and got
> my health care as a "spouse" from my wife's GOOD software job. I was
> working part time in 1998 making as much as I did working 80 hrs a week as
> a trucker in 2003. Being free of that health insurance hook in the ass is
> a great boon to wages. Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the
> Seattle Times for software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.

Are you kidding? That was market forces. The ads didn't disappear, they
moved online and multiplied.

With monster.com and its like around then, what kind of software talent was
going to rely on local print for job leads?

Jim

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:24:12 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>>><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>
>>>
>>> Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.
>>>
>>>>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>>>>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>>>>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.
>>>
>>>> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
>>>> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
>>>> yours.
>>>
>>> Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?
>>
>> I'm retired, moron.
>
> Same difference, tard.

I was a software developer when you were in rompers. And how bout IQ's at
50 paces?

>>> You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
>>> you do that you should think of what happens when government is
>>> controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
>>> outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.
>>
>> Like I said: You are incapable of absorbing what is at the link below.
>
> The link is bull****. Let me tell you why it's bull****. Because you
> don't understand the problem. It's not about district size, it's that
> the federal government is unaccountable to the state governments.

The government is really supposed to be accountable to the people. Screw
the states.

> Direct
> election of senators is what decoupled the federal government and made
> it so that it could blackmail the states and increase its power.

It may come as a shock to you, pal, but I too would be very pleased with
a repeal of the 17th amendment. The reason is EXACTLY the same. It puts
control CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE. I care not about the friggin states.

>>> HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>> ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>> AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
>>> history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
>>> as releases in the NYC subway)
>
>> Like I said: Incapable of absorbing the data at the link.
>
> Hey dufus, your link doesn't change the nature of government or the
> nature of central control.

And denial is a river in Africa.

> Increasing the number of congress critters by
> 1300 doesn't fix a damn thing, it just increases the number of offices.

That is incorrect as it stands according to most political philosophers
and political scientists and it is also false anecdotally. Yet the
proposal also speaks of relocating the representatives OUT OF THE BELTWAY
into the states they represent. What is interesting here is that you
support repeal of the 17th to put more control closer to the people, yet
you don't seem to recognize that principle when it is proposed in a way
that does not require Constitutional revision.

> Do you really think that the powers that be couldn't controll 1840
> congress critters the way it does 535 (including the senate)?

Obviously I believe that to be the case or I wouldn't propose what I am
proposing.

> Of course
> it could.

And Peter Pan is a place to wash yer tallywhacker.

> Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
> kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
> is today.

Why would I want more Rons and Dennises? I want more "representative"
people in those seats. You really do seem to miss the essential nature of
what the proposed reorganization achieves.

> District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
> in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
> congressman is now.

The duties are not the same in the two roles. Nothing is the same in what
you propose as an analogy.

> Central government is the problem. Trying to make central government
> accountable is like trying to make a pig fly.

The proposal is a Constitutionally appropriate decentralization. I think
you are just so bent on States Rights that you can't see it. I'm trying
to figure out why you _want_ to empower the state legislatures. I can see
it with the Senators because there is nothing that can be done to make
that proportional. Having them selected indirectly makes some sense in
that the lobby _MIGHT_ be minimally disenfranchised. Through the
closely held state legislators (elected in much smaller districts) the
people might have better control over the Senate.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:41:56 -0700, Clave wrote:

> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:18:30 -0700, Clave wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>> Look, I'm on your side WRT NHI -- I think it's desperately needed. All
>>> I'm
>>> saying is that the software industry isn't a poster child for the issue.
>>
>> So you may be right about software. I had my own one man corp for 20
>> years doing consulting (mostly sys admin in heterogeneous shops) and got
>> my health care as a "spouse" from my wife's GOOD software job. I was
>> working part time in 1998 making as much as I did working 80 hrs a week as
>> a trucker in 2003. Being free of that health insurance hook in the ass is
>> a great boon to wages. Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the
>> Seattle Times for software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.
>
> Are you kidding? That was market forces. The ads didn't disappear, they
> moved online and multiplied.
>
> With monster.com and its like around then, what kind of software talent was
> going to rely on local print for job leads?

Nope. It was indicative of the crash in tech stuff. I did monster at
some point also. I finally said to hell with it and went to see the
country. It was cool. I liked it. in 1999 the H1B quotas were raised to
the moon.

>
> Jim
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:24:12 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>>>><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.
>>>>
>>>>>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>>>>>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>>>>>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.
>>>>
>>>>> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
>>>>> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
>>>>> yours.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?
>>>
>>> I'm retired, moron.
>>
>> Same difference, tard.
>
> I was a software developer when you were in rompers. And how bout IQ's at
> 50 paces?

Lol. You'll lose.

>>>> You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
>>>> you do that you should think of what happens when government is
>>>> controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
>>>> outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.
>>>
>>> Like I said: You are incapable of absorbing what is at the link below.
>>
>> The link is bull****. Let me tell you why it's bull****. Because you
>> don't understand the problem. It's not about district size, it's that
>> the federal government is unaccountable to the state governments.

> The government is really supposed to be accountable to the people. Screw
> the states.

*sigh* you're ignorant. The concept is that the people can control the
government that is closest to them. PLUS by giving state government
power in the federal government, it prevents the federal government from
stomping on the state governments.

>> Direct
>> election of senators is what decoupled the federal government and made
>> it so that it could blackmail the states and increase its power.

> It may come as a shock to you, pal, but I too would be very pleased with
> a repeal of the 17th amendment. The reason is EXACTLY the same. It puts
> control CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE. I care not about the friggin states.

See above.

>>>> HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>>> ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>>> AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
>>>> history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
>>>> as releases in the NYC subway)
>>
>>> Like I said: Incapable of absorbing the data at the link.
>>
>> Hey dufus, your link doesn't change the nature of government or the
>> nature of central control.

> And denial is a river in Africa.

It doesn't change the nature of government and you have no reason why it
would. You'll have more unaccountable leaches living at taxpayer expense
that will be part of the same absurd two party system. Just more people,
same control system in place.

>> Increasing the number of congress critters by
>> 1300 doesn't fix a damn thing, it just increases the number of offices.

> That is incorrect as it stands according to most political philosophers
> and political scientists and it is also false anecdotally. Yet the
> proposal also speaks of relocating the representatives OUT OF THE BELTWAY
> into the states they represent. What is interesting here is that you
> support repeal of the 17th to put more control closer to the people, yet
> you don't seem to recognize that principle when it is proposed in a way
> that does not require Constitutional revision.

Having 1300 more people doesn't make them listen or care. You want more
representive government you have to destroy the two party system. The
system that locks just about every office to tweedle dee and tweedle
dumb. Where the special interests as they are called simply buy the two
from the two parties and no matter who is elected they win.

>> Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
>> kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
>> is today.

> Why would I want more Rons and Dennises? I want more "representative"
> people in those seats. You really do seem to miss the essential nature of
> what the proposed reorganization achieves.

Then you want a congress full of more CFR members... that doesn't
change a damn thing.

>> District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
>> in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
>> congressman is now.

> The duties are not the same in the two roles. Nothing is the same in what
> you propose as an analogy.

Your idea is about the smaller district being more representive, the
office holder more accountable. There is no reason to believe that would
occur. Plus the smaller districts will be just as rigged as the ones
today.

>> Central government is the problem. Trying to make central government
>> accountable is like trying to make a pig fly.

> The proposal is a Constitutionally appropriate decentralization.

It won't change anything. All the present problems remain, you just add
offices.

And how can you be for de-centralization when you want to put so much
power in the hands of a central government? It makes no sense. You're
running a smoke and mirrors game. You're talking central control and
trying to mask it. More representives doesn't change things, it will
just be more men in office that do as the special interests that own
them see fit.

"The Trucker" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:41:56 -0700, Clave wrote:
>
>> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
>> news

<...>

>>> Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the Seattle Times for
>>> software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.
>>
>> Are you kidding? That was market forces. The ads didn't disappear, they
>> moved online and multiplied.
>>
>> With monster.com and its like around then, what kind of software talent
>> was going to rely on local print for job leads?
>
> Nope. It was indicative of the crash in tech stuff.
^
correlative


> I did monster at some point also. I finally said to hell with it and went
> to see the country. It was cool. I liked it.

So you're generalizing from your own experience.


> in 1999 the H1B quotas were raised to the moon.

So?

Anyway, software dev unions might have been able to prevent that.

Jim